So, this session is a workshop on Agile MythBusters. It's based on really something that I wrote in 2007 when I kind of really decided that I'm done with Agile. And I kind of wrote this blog about all the myths that are there in Agile. But I think it's been seven years since I wrote that and I believe that there are a lot more myths, maybe 100 more myths that have been added. So what I want to do is basically over the next 45 minutes, the first 10 minutes, we will spend collecting a list of facts that you believe are really, you know, like the true Agile facts. And, you know, we will work in smaller groups. We will pick up facts from you guys and then we will select as a group top six facts that we want to debate about today. So that's how it's basically structured. Disclaimer, if you're here to listen to me for a presentation, then you're in the wrong section. You should go find some other sections. It's going to be mostly you guys doing the work because you are the real experts. I have not been doing Agile for maybe seven years now. So, you know, you guys are better experts than me. So, again, if this is what you're looking for is a presentation from me, then this is the wrong session. There are other wonderful sessions happening. You should go there. Use the law of two feet. Did Ravi talk about the law of two feet? Use the law of two feet. So, what I want to do is if you guys can come together in smaller groups, that would really be helpful. And especially if you're from the same company, try and sit on another table because you're not going to learn much more if you're going to hang around with the people from the same company. It doesn't matter. Five people should be good enough. Why don't you join another table? So, this will be good. One, two, three, four, five tables. That's wonderful. All right. Someone's calling me. Let's turn off my phones. Basically, I'm assuming most of you work in the distributor to come in because, you know, as I presented the proposal two days ago, put it together with the distributor dropout. We really want to touch upon the effect of Agile in the distributed environment. The myths around that actually get compounded when you talk in the distributed environment. So, I do want to make sure you bring in the flavor. What are you seeing in the distributed Agile environment? Are facts about Agile? And then we will look at whether they are myths or not. So, in each of your groups, you're going to talk about this. So, for example, fixed price contracts, you know, can be done beautifully in Agile. That's the fact that you believe. So, you know, put that down. Or there might be other things, you know, you should do distributed retrospectives, for example. So, that's the fact that you believe that it's true. And then we will talk through if that's a fact or it's a myth. So, take five minutes in your tables and come up with a list of facts that you believe are true about Agile. You have people from the same company sitting at the same tables. You should try and find different tables. Now it's okay, but you should try and find different tables. You don't work with each other. Okay. Top three is good. Let's consolidate to top three. I want you guys to please pay attention. It's a group learning activity. So, let's pay attention, please. So, you know, what you can't do in ten minutes, you can do in one minute. So, we thought three is good enough. The first one is I think Agile demands a high level of discipline amongst all team members. High level discipline. Yeah, to be successful. Second one is Agile works when all departments or all organizations complement Agile. Otherwise, Agile becomes a namesake. So, you can't reap the benefits. All teams are all departments. All departments. So, when we say, you know, just not IT, you know, the consuming organization. Yeah. All departments work in sync or have the... Compliment Agile. Working in sync is not the word that you want to say. Compliment... Compliment or follow Agile. Or follow Agile. Last one. Co-location works better than distributed Agile. Co-location works better. Okay, cool. We'll go to the next table, please. Let's go with three, top three. Yeah, first one is the crumb of scrums effectiveness. Scrum of... Scrum of scrum. Scrum of scrum. S-square back in the days, that's what it was. I don't know what they call it anymore. S-square works better, is effective. Time zone management. They're saying it's effective. That's a statement, right? Now, whether it's true or not, we will debate it. We'll debate it. I want to phrase all of them so they are a statement of a fact. Zone issues are there. Time zone management. Distributed Agile does not work when you have time zone differences. Yeah. That's a statement, right? It has to be managed. Distributed Agile does not work with time zone differences. Velocities. Okay? Last one. Yeah, velocity is often misused. The term velocity. Velocity is often misused. Anyone misuses velocity here? Nobody, right? It's always somebody else. We are all the perfect guys. I'm glad I have the right guys in the room. It's all the other guys fault, right? Cool. Thank you. Agile doesn't mean getting project delivered faster. Agile does not mean delivering faster delivery. Yeah. It's more of quick feedback delivering what is the value. Okay. Second one is pair programming doesn't really mean two person doing one job. Pair programming does not, doesn't mean two people doing one task. Is Agile a fit for a fixed price pricing model? Agile works in fixed price. Is it only fixed price or fixed price, fixed scope, fixed? There's nothing obvious to me. I'm just a moron, right? So you have to be very, very specific. Fixed price, fixed scope, projects. Fixed time as well. Throw the iron triangle in there. There's a bonus point which is Agile is 80% hype and 20% fact. Agile is 80. So 80-20 rule applies everywhere, right? Yes. 80% hype, 20% fact. Yeah. Is that a fact? I don't know. Next table please. So we have top five. Two is already there so I will not repeat those. Perfect. The first is proxy PO or proxy scrum master. So proxy PO or scrum master is the right thing to do. Tools play more important than individuals and interactions. Of course, tools and processes are more important than anything else in life. The project manager is playing the scrum master role in offshore kind of environment. PM is the best SM. All right, we'll go to that table. Let's cover the other groups and we'll come back because I'm running out of board space. This is why we had index cards to write stories. We left that long back 10 years ago and now our stories are two page narratives. I think you've got one of them there already. Velocity as a metric is killing agility. Velocity is killing agility. The next one is Agile equal to no documentation. Agile equals no docs. The last one is cross killing is difficult in distributed agile. Cross. Cross killing. Cross killing. Cross killing. Okay, the whole. Cross killing. Scaling. Scale. Scale. Scale, right? Cross functional teams. Yeah. Or cross functional or generalizing specialists. Some are playing multiple roles. More roles. More roles. That's what you meant, right? Yeah. Cross scaling. Skilling. That's cross killing. Cross killing is what's your statement? Is difficult. Is difficult. Okay, cool. We'll go to this table. Last table. Our independent teams. Okay, skip that, right? Just come to which is not covered. We only have 45 minutes. Agile equals not... Nobody's accountable in agile, basically. Everybody is accountable equals no one is accountable. Agile meetings. Or should I actually say scrum meetings to be very particular? Agile not equals scrum, right? Scrum meetings is very productive. We will see, right? What's the fun if we let the cat out of the bag already? Scrum is stressful. But nobody's accountable. These are wonderful lists of facts, right? This is good. This is a good list. Are you guys happy with this list? Then we can go home. All right, so we need to pick a few of these that we will actually go and debate in detail. What I'll do is I'll do a quick run through this and maybe we will pick some of the obvious one and knock them out so it would not take much time. And then the real meaty ones we will spend more time and we'll go into detail, right? So hopefully we'll cover a lot of these. Agile requires very high level of discipline. Everyone agrees? So should we change the name from Agile to Disciplined Agile Delivery? Dad, anyone's heard of Dad? Disciplined Agile Delivery, right? That's there. The focus is very heavy on, you know, it's about discipline. So you really need to be very disciplined. So we are saying this is true. Everyone in agreement? Let's move faster. All departments must follow or complement Agile. Agile should work, you know, in an Agile fashion for Agile to work. True? Not necessary. Let's hear it. So you're in agreement with the fact but here we have folks who... I don't think they all have to be in coordination. I mean it would be great but I don't think it... I don't think it would be great for us to be successful with Agile. So let's phrase this this way that, you know, businesses can still succeed if not all teams are practicing Agile but it would be great if everyone was practicing Agile. They need to be aligned. Compliment. So they're saying complement not just follow, right? So let's put this as true saying it would be great if this happened, right? That's what's easy. Coalocation works better for Agile. I will park that because I have an extremely strong opinion about that, right? So I'll park that and we'll come back to that. The whole Agile team is co-located. Product order, sales, marketing, HR, whoever you need to be successful. So I'm leaving it. Let's not debate it. We're going to come back because we get off the easy ones out and then the hard ones we will spend some more time because I think there will be lots of different opinions from different people, right? So we want to hear it all out. So let's leave that. Agile equals no docs. So what do we mean? Let's spend a minute talking about what do we mean by documentation? I am assuming, right? I'm assuming when people refer to documentation, they're mostly talking about process related documents which are done, you know, to ensure that there is some amount of sanity in terms of the process or someone can audit whether you're doing the right things or not. That's what I assume people are saying when they're referring to documentation. Is it the safe assumption? Any documentation done to satisfy process adherence, right? It could be code related. It could be me having bath related. Doesn't matter. Anything that is process driven by process for for auditing the process. Writing user stories can also be considered as documentation, right? Agile equals no waste form for documentation. But how do you define wasteful? Because we can't even agree on what is documentation. Documentation is not required to start, but it is required for reference in future. Agile manifesto only says working software over comprehensive documentation. Not instead of? Yeah, it's not instead of. I don't think that's a confirmation as long as you don't overdo the documentation. I think the manifesto is fine, right? But I think they left a lot of gray areas. And because of that there's a lot of confusion in terms of does it mean, you know, I can do this kind of documentation, I skip that kind of a documentation. So we'll go there. So is it safe to say that the team should be able to decide what is the right amount of documentation for their project instead of external people dictating what needs to be done? Stakeholder is part of the team to me, right? You'll not be successful if you don't have stakeholders as part of your team. They don't have to physically sit next to you. That's fine, but it's a virtual team, right? Because you're working together. You're working together to ensure that what stakeholders need is actually met. So in that sense you're working as a team. Because if the stakeholder is saying I want this and the team decides to do something else, then they're not working together as a team. That's what I mean. It doesn't have to be the physical team in that sense. The stakeholders would demand some of the documents for operating purposes just because it's a government form. Absolutely. You would have to take some of the optimal documentation. I agree with you. I work for medical organizations where you need to follow certain amount of documentation for you to get an FDA regulation clear even before it can be pushed out, right? That's a stakeholder to me, right? The FDA is a stakeholder to me. And we as a team have to figure out what is the optimal amount of documentation that adheres to their requirement but doesn't tax the team beyond what they need to do. If it fits into the category of we are factual, we need to provide it. We are not sure. We are writing it now rather than doing it later. Okay. I was hoping that we're consolidating it and everybody seems to be in agreement. This is... We'll be always doing the extremes. Either it will be... Most of the times it will be like no documentation at all. Like you are not in the code, no technical details, no technical documentation and stuff like that. Or if you have to do, we'll go and we'll go and do it next time. The extremes is easy to follow, right? It's about trying to find the fine balance which requires lots of experience. It's easy to make extreme statements, right? Either ways is easy. So I want to move. There are a lot of other good points. I want to move. I would say that we have busted this. This is a myth. Agile equals no documentation. Scrum of scrum is effective. It's a fact that scrum of scrum is effective. I want people to give the verdict. Do they think it's... Is it effective or it's not effective? Anyone's being in a successful scrum of scrum. Define success. Because the teams are complaining about each other. In a release level retrospective, the teams are not complaining about each other. That's a good point, right? About the scrum aspect. It's not about retrospective.  Scrum aspect is part of the team. So we are saying they are not complaining about others. The teams are able to proceed without selling any roadblocks. If the coordination between the teams is smooth, right? They are not waiting on each other. Then we would say that scrum of scrum is working effectively. It can be effective but it's often not. It's very often not. I'm trying to get it. I would say that it's not effective. It's a bad idea.  But I want to hear what people want. Because it's not about me. It's like a Chinese whisper we had in the previous session. In the previous session. It's like most of the information gets lost. Scrum of scrum, most information gets lost. It gets to the team. There becomes a controlling authoritative body rather than a collaborative environment. These are hard problems that people are facing. You see the video spot or something. All three locations come. Time zone for some people it does not matter. Indians can always work very late at night, right? What's the big deal? That's a fact. It's a necessary evil. So we can rephrase this saying scrum of scrum is a necessary evil and say that's a fact. All right, I'm going to park this. I'm going to park this. You're going to come back. Distributed agile does not work. It's kind of simple related. So we will come back to that together. Velocity is killing agility. What does it mean? Anyone's going to debate on that? Yes. What does it mean? The measure the team have gauged over multiple sprints is then used by project managers or outside management to push the team harder to say why have you achieved me a velocity you're going to have to work like, you promised this now deliver. I want to summarize what he just said. So everyone's in agreement with velocity one of the problems that we run into is that external outside the team people outside the team or stakeholders probably start pushing for higher velocity. They start using that as a measure to push you harder. It becomes this thing about, you need to do better. You need to work longer. You need to work harder. You need to do whatever. It becomes a thing in itself that people are after. I would actually argue that we completely missed the forest for the tree by going down the route of velocity. It was the guys who originally came up with it any clue who was the person who came up with velocity who came up with the idea of story points. What Cunningham and Ken Beck were the guys who first came up with the concept of story points velocity. There was another thing called load factor which got missed out when the scrum guys borrowed some of the XP stuff half baked. Velocity was discarded very early by Ken Beck and what Cunningham is saying. We are actually measuring the wrong thing. We are measuring output not outcomes. We are measuring how much code can be generated how many features can be completed how many stories can be completed but we are not measuring whether this is actually helping achieve the goals of the users or the business or whatever because it's kind of orthogonal. I could build 500 features but that does not mean that will solve the business goal that I have tried to set out. So they kind of discarded it very early but somehow the rest of the community without naming any particular community seemed to be running very crazy off the cliff with that. What is wrong in going behind velocity? At the end of the day Agile is also to be about being productive. Agile is about being productive should we put it out there I have also different experience in a big distributed project we train our management first to understand velocity so nobody is pressuring people to get into higher velocity because we know that then people start to take statistics or just give arbitrary velocity values but we use very strong transparency we get by the velocity from each team and to see where something is going wrong and where we have to discuss with the team and not about pressuring them but about helping them or they are helping them in moving So we would educate the management to do some of these things but I am questioning the fundamental premise of velocity itself. Let's take a minute because I want to put this to rest. How do you calculate velocity? Number of story points completed in a sprint? Accepted in a sprint? Number of story points accepted in a sprint? Perfect. That's good. How do you calculate story points? Based on complexity you assign Fibonacci series What do you assign? T-shirt sizes? Fibonacci series is the most popular one from what I know. What was the reason behind going Fibonacci series? Because you don't want people to say two is two times more than one. It was about sizing things differently relatively saying this is bigger than this but I don't know is it two times three times or five times I am just going to assign these arbitrary Fibonacci series numbers so we can distinguish that they belong to different buckets. Everyone in agreement with that? And the other reason for doing that was so that you cannot apply arithmetic on top of it. You cannot apply arithmetic on top of it. So I have assigned one story point, three story points, seven story points or whatever numbers you use. And then we total it up and we say this is our velocity. Let's say our velocity is 20. Next sprint if I pick 21 pointer stories you know where you will be in soup. So the whole velocity is fundamentally flawed. It was only very originally an idea that people were toying around and they immediately discarded saying it's a bad idea. But we seem to have been stuck with it. So that's the problem with velocity. Arthematics cannot be applied on story points but we seem to be going crazy doing not just arithmetic but statistics on top of it and you know comparing teams and doing all kinds of crazy stuff when it kind of was really what what Kenningham was trying to do was getting people away from talking in terms of effort required to do something or measuring people on those basis. Aligning number of hours per student or whatever student. That's the next step I suppose. That's always been there because if you see a lot of trainings also people you know it's very hard for people to grok their head around the concept of story point. Because a lot of people are used to thinking in terms of effort estimation. How long is it going to take? That's what we've been asked from childhood and we're so used to it. So when you say story point you're also thinking four hours so two story points. And right there we've missed the forest for a tree. We kind of completely missed the point. So I'm going to not debate too much I want to move on but I would say this is clearly so actually the way it's phrased is this is a fact. True or a fact. Agile does not mean faster delivery. Is it a myth or is it true? Agile means faster delivery. Agile means faster delivery. How many people for? Agile could lead to faster delivery but Agile does not mean faster delivery. Agile could lead to faster delivery but Agile could completely drive you down faster down the cliff. It's a wonderful way to drive off the cliff because you're fast. And when you're fast you can go down in the wrong direction and burn all your money very fast. What's missing in Agile? People focus a lot on working software but the wrong software. Look inside your organizations after moving to Agile how much of the features that you have actually built very fast very good quality, very high quality all of those things come along with Agile. You get high quality, you get faster all of that good stuff but how many organizations if you look inside you've been able to be more closer to what your actual market required. When I've talked to customers when I've talked to companies this is one of the big challenges they face. So Agile does not mean faster delivery. Agile can lead to faster delivery but still be careful. The disclaimer is be careful that it is a great way to drive fast down a road which might be a wrong road. It certainly helps because you can get faster feedback. You can do smaller iterations and you can get faster feedback but how many people actually do real iterations with real customers. So you're not really getting feedback if you're just doing demos every sprint. You're going to get feedback when you actually can see real users using it. And again that's something that does not happen so you don't even get really faster feedback in the true sense. You get feedback saying this yellow button doesn't look good, yeah I know that. It's about whether you even need the screen. Is there a better process? Is there a better optimization in terms of your workflow that you can completely avoid all of this stuff? Those are the kind of questions that people should be asking in my opinion. So what do we say? This is Agile does not mean faster delivery. Pair programming does not mean two people doing one task. I would say it is a myth. How many people for myth? My good guy. So why do others feel that in pair programming you can work on two different tasks? Why would you work on two different tasks? Kind of defeats the point of pair programming. What was the idea behind pair programming? Anyone? Where did pair programming come from? Not from extreme programming, sorry. Where did pair programming come from? No, I understand but I'm asking where did pair programming come from? Who originated pair programming? Which company brought pair programming? No thanks. Not Toyota, not NASA. There is actually a big paper written and what can he have talks about that paper. He says that's where I got the idea of pair programming was a very late comer to the extreme programming community. It was not something they started with. The company which used to build compilers. Anyone? Borland. Borland is the guy who originally came up with the idea of pair programming. But let's park that for a minute, right? What is the rational behind pair programming? Two people working together, why would you want to do that? It's a waste of time. It's never about expert and junior or any of that stuff. There are two different perspectives. We have Arlo Belsi here at the conference. Please go follow his feet once. Arlo Belsi is the guy who did a lot of research on pair programming and he's written a paper which was very, very popular, still is very popular. It's called Pramiskius pair programming where he did a lot of experiments on what is the right combination of pairing people and how much time should people spend together in a training session. Beautiful paper. It's a hardcore research that he's done. Should go read Arlo Belsi or go meet him and talk to him about his paper. I'll summarize what he came up with. Pair programming works most effective when you pair randomly two people and you swap them every couple of hours. That was his results of his research. Don't go by somebody else's research. Do your own research.  Anyone's read this book by Andy Hunt, Refactoring Your Wetwear? Yeah, few people. There is Dave Thomas here at the conference who's Andy Hunt's partner. Go talk to Dave Thomas about the refactoring wetwear. Again, a beautiful book where he talks about rubber ducking. Anyone's aware of the concept of rubber ducking? So a lot of times I'll quickly summarize this because this is a very dear topic to me and I want to put that to rest.  You can't figure out, I'm debugging something, I can't figure out what's going wrong. Everything seems to be right but it's somehow just not working.  Anyone's experienced that? Everyone must have if you've programmed it. Why does that happen? When you start somewhere that you're just struggling there, when I start speaking something, I feel like, oh actually I did that and I just come out.   This should be here, this should be the values and why is this not working. When you try to explain someone, you step back and you kind of go through, you're trying to explain the reality to someone else. When you speak, it's a different part of your brain that gets activated. When you listen to yourself speak, it's a different part of your brain that is getting activated. You move from a single core, single processor to a multi-core, multi-processor thread. That's the simplest way I can explain why when you're explaining to someone else things work much better. That was the premise or rubber ducking. People keep a rubber duck. They don't need an actual physical person. They keep a rubber duck and they talk to the rubber duck when they're stuck. The first time I saw someone doing that when I was a kid, I was like they've been programming way too long. Why are they talking to the rubber duck? That seems like so freaking weird. But then I realized the power of rubber ducking. And then the guys at Boreland were taking that one step further. They said talking to a rubber duck can have such a great impact. If you're programming with another person, you're constantly looking at it from different perspectives or kind of making sure that you're in sync with what is happening, you would be much faster. You would stop yourself from even creating the mistake in the first place. Rubber ducking works well when you're stuck. But what if we want to even avoid getting stuck? So that was the premise behind programming. Personally, I think it's very effective in my experience that I have done and it's very effective and both of you are looking at the same thing. If both of you are looking at two different tasks, then I don't think you get this advantage at all because it's about talking. It's about syncing up. It's about making sure you're in sync. And Laurie Williams has done a lot of research. She's got a paper. She's got a book where she's done a lot of studies across things and she's published the book called Pear Programming Illustrated in which she talks about it's actually you get more productivity for however you want to measure productivity which is debatable. But you get more productivity when you pair program for the reasons that I talked about. Time check. How much time do I have left? I have five more minutes. All right. That's a good way to stop someone from asking questions. So it does not mean two people working on the same task. That's a fact. It is about them working on the same task. Pick one last one. I got that. Yeah, I don't need to look at it. Agile is 80% hype, 20% fact. How many people want to debate that all the consultants put your hand up? Right? Because all the consultants will say of course it is false. No? That's good.  I think Agile and we are all the 4% it's the 96% that's outside who don't come to these conferences because they don't want the hype. Please please go watch Andy Hunt's webinar that we did before the conference. It's a webinar. We couldn't get Andy Hunt here, so we did a webinar with him. It's a free video available. Please, please go watch that in that he puts this point to rest. Andy Hunt and Dave Thomas. We invited Dave Thomas to come here. I'm letting the cat out of the door but if you are here on Saturday you should go to Dave Thomas keynote after writing the Agile manifesto Dave Thomas for 13 years has not gone to a single Agile conference, right? So he said Agile died for me the day I wrote the manifesto. Right? And this is the first Agile conference he's coming and he's going to try and put that to rest. Right? So he's going to talk about the video that I was talking about Andy Hunt's video where he talks about, you know, you ask a kid about solar system and the kid will draw the sun at the center and the planets around it. Right? That's solar system and most of us believe that's solar system. Right? And then he showed a video where he said actually the way to look at the solar system is the sun is basically heading somewhere at a very high speed. It's just like constantly moving somewhere and then the planets are just wobbling along with it because of the whole gravitational pull and electrical pull and it's just like randomly going somewhere we don't know we have no clue where it is so point he was trying to make is it's a very dynamic system not a static thing that's sitting there. Right? And he said what we were trying to do with the manifesto was to portray that image of Agile that it is it is this constantly moving thing none of us have a clue where it is going we are uncovering better ways of building software we have not uncovered all the ways but we are uncovering ways we don't know where we are heading but it's going somewhere but people seem to have put models and frameworks and all kinds of fancy stuff around it to make it look like a static thing right and then he talks about we completely missed the point of what we were trying to do right so I would say Agile these days is 100% hype right because it completely missed the point but if you believe in going back to the basics and looking at what these guys were trying to do there is a lot of benefit to be got out of the wisdom that these guys put together right so forget all the hype remove all of that clutter right look at what these guys were originally trying to do right there is a lot of wisdom in that in my opinion there's a lot of interesting stuff especially in extreme programming because it's very controversial it's very it shakes you fundamentally when you look at it you are like this can't this doesn't make any sense right and those are the kind of things you should be looking because what makes sense is already something that you've tried 100 times right like Albert Einstein says doing the same experiment thousand times and expecting different results is height of stupidity right so it's about you know if something does not make sense give it a shot is that might help you uncover something else but what we ended up doing is basically taking what makes sense extrapolating it to what we were already doing and calling it agile and putting a framework on top of it and another framework on top of it and another tool on top of it and that's agile so if you look at agile from that perspective it's 100% height right but if you go back to what these guys were originally trying to do and look at some of the things that don't make sense to you then there is a lot of wisdom to be learned from that right so I think I will not mark that but that's pretty much what we have so I'm going to leave two minutes for question answers and then we will you know let the next speaker come in I have silenced the room if I'm generating more hype so back in 2009 I gave a keynote called agile is the new waterfall which had 16,000 downloads of that presentation so I created more hype with that presentation right but I think people are smart enough to figure out what works for them and the rest I don't worry about I don't know where you got that number but that's beautiful alright thank you guys


10. English Phrases for Saying Someone is an Expert from EspressoEnglish.net 1. She was born to dance. Use the phrase was born to, often with athletic or artistic activities, to say that the activity is perfect for the person's abilities and life purpose. 2. He's a natural. Use this phrase to say that a person has natural ability to do something well and doesn't need much help or teaching. 3. She could do it in her sleep. She could do it with her eyes closed. Use this phrase when someone is so good, so well-practiced at an activity that they can do it automatically without using much thought or effort. 4. He knows it inside out. He knows all the ins and outs. Both of these expressions mean that a person has detailed, comprehensive knowledge of a particular topic, activity, or area. 5. She knows the city like the back of her hand.  6. She's a walking encyclopedia of theology. Use this phrase to describe a person who knows a lot of facts about a topic. This is often used for academic areas of study. 7. He's in a class of his own. He's in a class by himself. These phrases don't mean that a person is alone in a classroom. Instead, they mean that the person is so good that no one can compare to him. 8. He's the best in the business. Use this phrase to describe a professional who is excellent at their job. 9. She's quite gifted. This phrase describes someone who is intelligent, especially a child whose intelligence is higher than average. 10. He's a math whiz. Describing a person as a whiz in a particular topic means the person is very good at that topic. Thanks for watching English Tips from Espresso English. If you liked this video, please share it.


Is a political science major or a political science degree worth it? Is it worth going $40,000 in debt and spending four years of your life to get this degree? That's what we're going to be talking about today and let's jump right into it. First of all, what is political science? Political science is going to be studying all of the various branches of government from the local level all the way to the top level. They're also going to be studying social, cultural, and economic factors that tend to drive policy as well as behavior. And this is one of the most popular degrees here in the United States. Around 33,000 people graduate with a bachelor's every year. Now some career paths you might go down are becoming a political scientist, public relations specialist, or fundraising manager. Now we're going to talk about four important factors that go into evaluating a college degree and whether it's worth it, whether it's worth that $40,000 in student loan debt. And the first one is going to be earning potential or salary. So with this degree you would expect to make around $47,000 a year starting out and $89,000 in mid-career pay. You can compare that to a high and a low earning degree and you'll see that it's kind of average, maybe slightly on the higher side of average for a liberal arts degree. Now as a political scientist you would make around $122,000 a year. However, generally speaking you're gonna have to have at least a master's degree. If you became a public relations specialist you'd make around $61,000 a year or $29 an hour. And if you became a fundraising manager you could make $116,000 or $55 an hour although this is going to require quite a bit of experience. So you can see that a lot of these careers pay pretty well. Now when you look at this degree over a lifetime, social science degrees earn around $2.5 million compared to $2.4 million for all degrees and all career paths. Keep in mind that this is kind of like the last 40 years or so. So you know maybe 40 years from now this could be completely different but it is kind of a sign and if it's not good that's a little bit of a red flag. So overall I'm going to give this one a score of 7.5 out of 10 when it comes to earning potential or salary. Next we're going to be talking about satisfaction and this is the most subjective section and I like to break it down into meaning and job satisfaction. So meaning which is basically how much you think your career positively impacts the world. You're going to see that political science has a score of 48 percent. You can compare that to a really good one and a really bad one and you'll see that it is on the lower side. I was honestly surprised to see that. I figured people who are really interested in politics and they go into political science would have higher meaning scores because they would be trying to make the world a better place. Now one career path you could go down public relations manager you can see that the meaning score is a little higher at 65 percent and then when you look at the job satisfaction you see it's 73 percent which again you compare that to a really good one and a really bad one and you'll see that they are both on the higher side. Now when it comes to how much people regret getting their degrees social science degrees tend to be the fourth most regretted type of major and the main reason for that is because they're too general impractical hard to find a job without further studies. However I will say that political science is one of the more practical types of social science degrees out there. There are quite a few jobs in the government for instance. There's lots of jobs in your local government and then you know there's at the state level and then there's the federal level as well. On top of that you could work directly for different campaigns and different politicians or you could work for nonprofits and if you are able to land a job the satisfaction for a lot of the different careers does seem to be okay. Now the key word here was if you are so if you're not able to land a job which a lot of people aren't then you know that could be completely different. You might end up working in a completely unrelated career that you never saw yourself working in. So for instance I knew a Starbucks barista that had a political science degree. I would talk to him all the time when I was studying. Super smart guy. If I remember correctly he got a philosophy degree and undergrad and then a political science degree in a graduate school and just super smart guy but he wasn't able to find a job and he ended up working at Starbucks as a barista. However if you are able to get a job I think your satisfaction is going to be relatively good. With that being said satisfaction is extremely subjective it depends on the industry you're in the business you work for your co-workers your boss all kinds of different things the area of the country that you live and so for one person it might be 10 out of 10 another person might be one out of 10 so just keep that in mind and take this with a grain of salt. But overall when it comes to satisfaction I'm going to give this one an 8.5 out of 10. Next we're going to be talking about demand and I mainly focus on supply and demand so basically how much business owners and hiring managers need to hire people who have these specific degrees or the specific skills that are taught with these majors. So for instance for a political scientist there are 7,000 jobs out there and it's growing at 6% which is faster than average. For PR specialists there's a lot of jobs though there's around 274,000 and it's growing at 7% which is faster than average. And for PR relations and fundraising managers there's 88,000 jobs and it's growing at 9% which is much faster than average. Now of course I'm not going to show any data on this just because everything is happening in the world right now it's not accurate but generally speaking social science liberal arts degrees tend to have the highest level of unemployment rates and when you type in political science degree onto monster.com you'll see that only around 1100 jobs pop up compare that to a really good one and a really bad one and you see that it's on the lower side. And when big companies are surveyed about what types of college degree majors they're looking to hire you see that social science degrees comes in in the middle or even a little bit lower than average. So it's not one that's you know super hot a lot of people are looking to hire. So for instance around 83% of these big businesses we're looking to hire business majors and only 20% we're looking to hire social science majors. So overall when it comes to demand I'm going to give this one a 7 out of 10. Next we're going to be talking about x factors this is anything that I think is important but didn't make the list on any of the other ones. Now I talked about this before but how much you're going to make over a lifetime social science degrees are slightly above average at about 2.5 million versus 2.4 for all types of degrees and all types of careers. With that being said it is going to depend on what career path you end up going down. So for instance if you work in the computer field and technology you'll make around 3.2 million. If you work in management it'll be 3.4 million but if you work in community service or legally you'll make 1.8 million. So it really depends on what career path you end up going down. There is a lot of variance there it's not one of those degrees where it does well no matter what career you go into. Now if you look at Zip Recruiter Skills Index public relation comes in at a 46 out of 100 score you can compare that to a good one and a bad one and you'll see that it's very mid tier. This basically just means that public relations is somewhat of a valuable skill. Some businesses are looking to hire people who have that skill but it's not a super hot one at least not at this particular time in history. Next is something that liberal arts and social science degrees do really well in which is how easily automated that skill set is and usually it's pretty much impossible to automate these types of skills because they're soft skills that involve a lot of communication and human-to-human contact which robots will probably never be able to do. So for instance political scientists only have a 4% chance of being automated according to WillRobotsTakeMyJob.com. Now one thing that's very interesting is political science was number 10 on the top 10 degrees that create the most millionaires. However they say it's usually not because of the salary you earn as a politician but rather your personal financial investments and that would make sense because in politics there is a lot of economics involved there and so you'd probably have an upper hand on a lot of people on the inner workings of the economy and you'd be able to better predict what's going to happen and therefore make good investments. When it comes to difficulty, political science is not going to be one of the harder ones. It ranks 34 out of 55 overall and that could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you're looking for but overall I am going to give this one a score of 8 out of 10 when it comes to x factors. So when you take all of those and you divide them by four you'll see that it's going to come out to a score of 7.75 out of 10. This is definitely one of the better social science degrees however I will say that there's a good chance that you're not going to be able to get a job. So one thing that I have to do in these videos is I have to kind of set some expectations. I'm making the assumption here that you are going to thoroughly research this that you're the right person for the degree. You know you never want to go into something just because I say it's good or because some website says it has a good salary you want to make sure that you're actually interested in it. So I'm making those assumptions here and with that assumption I could say that this is a pretty good career path pretty good degree for you to go down. However if you want to be careful here I would highly recommend either minoring in political science or double majoring in something else that would also be beneficial for you because a lot of the time you might plan things out really well but things end up changing down the line. You might meet somebody you end up moving somewhere where there's no political science jobs. I mean there's so many different things that could potentially happen. So keep that in mind here you don't necessarily have to get a political science degree in order to become a politician for instance or even a PR person. There's a lot of other degrees that you can get and still go down that career path. So if you do your due diligence you do your research you reach out to people that are in the career that you're trying to get into and ask them what they recommend that you do and this is what they recommend that I would say you know go for it. However you still want to be very careful with this one and I recommend focusing on internships skills work experience and networking. Now if there's a video you're waiting for on a college degree and I haven't gotten to it yet then check out my college degree ranker down in the description below. I think it's the best resource out there for doing research on college degrees and it is in my Patreon. It's in version 1.1 right now I'm hoping that everything kind of calms down on the world employment goes back to normal and then I'm going to start working on version two. If you haven't done it already go ahead and gently tap the like button hit the subscribe button ring the notification bell and comment down below any thoughts comments criticisms etc that you have on the video share the video if you thought it was helpful and you want to help some of your friends out and before you leave check out my other videos right here I made them just for you.


morning everybody. We've got that lumber off the trailer and we're ready to head to Nebraska. Our pickup is in a town called Lindsay, Nebraska and that's taking us all the way over to Prince Edward Island in eastern Canada. So let's get going. I got a can of brew coffee this morning. I'm here in Brainerd. I'm gonna give it a shot with a garbage can soon. Empty washer fluid jug down there and some cardboard from a case of water. It'll be a full day, well not a full day, but it'll be all day today will be empty. We're loading tomorrow morning in Lindsay, Nebraska. It's 750 kilometers, seven and a half hours of driving to get there. There's a wait me. So here we go. Chasing those dollars wherever they show up. I come down from Canada. I can deliver into the US, right? But the load I take back to Canada has to cut, has to go directly back to Canada. So I can't pick up a load here in Minnesota and bring it to Nebraska and then pick up the load in Nebraska going back to Canada. I'm not allowed to do that. That's called interstating. To put simply, that would be taking an American job, right? They have American truckers to do that stuff. I have to take freight that's going directly back to Canada. So my load is going back to Prince Edward Island and is waiting in Nebraska so I can drive there to pick it up.  That's how it works. The same thing for Americans when they deliver up into Canada. You know, if you deliver into Winnipeg, Saskatoon, you're going to have to go empty from Winnipeg to Saskatoon to pick up your reload. You're not allowed to pick up freight in Winnipeg and delivered into Saskatoon to fill up that gap. You know what I mean? Because that's the same thing as before, just the other way. That's a Canadian job to do. So if you're an American, you have to pick and you pick up freight in Canada.  It's the way the laws work and all the treaties and trade and whatever else they've signed. I think it works pretty good. Sometimes we have multiple drops in the U.S., like sometimes we have up to nine drops. You know, my first drop could be in Iowa and then I could have five drops, you know, through like Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia and then ending off in Florida. That's all one load. That's okay. But then I have to pick up a reload in Florida or wherever. Or if I'm in Florida for my last drop and my reload is only in, let's say, Texas. Hopefully I'd have a reload closer than that. But if the only one was in Texas, I'd have to drive empty all the way to Texas, pick it up, then go right back to Canada. I'm an international driver. I go cross-border, back and forth between Canada and the United States. Seeing the differences in the countries and the similarities. I've decided to travel down Minnesota Highway 23. We're sort of cutting across Minnesota through the countryside towards Sioux Falls in South Dakota. It's coming up to Spicer, Minnesota. How many detours the 23 have. We've already gone through two kind of lengthy detours the entire highway. Different sections, so there was big, long detours that kind of confused me a little bit. But good thing that they had proper signage on the side of the road that guided me around it. I appreciate that when they go through the extra effort of making the road signs clear and visible and easy to understand. Because sometimes you go through places and they have a detour. Sort of like that detour back in by Shakopee the other day. Remember that? And you have no idea what's going on. There's no warning ahead of time that there's a detour coming, but that the road is closed up ahead. So when you get there, you're like, Oh, the road is closed. Okay. And then there's no signs of which way trucks should go. And then you sort of follow traffic until you can find somewhere to pull over, right? And find out which direction to take. But sometimes these detours lead through non-truck roads. So you can't just trust them when they're like, Yeah, this road's closed. Just go that way. Well, is that way a truck route? Because this was a truck route.  So they did a good job here. They sent us around. It wasn't in an urban area either. It's through the countryside. So I got to see some Minnesota farmland. Nice little scenic detour. I'm about three hours away from Sioux Falls. Like I was telling you earlier, I want to grab some fuel there. I was thinking of grabbing a shower there as well. But I'm going to look at the time when I get there. And I might head all the way down to Lindsey, Nebraska, just straight there. I have to make sure that I'm there in time so that in the morning I can wake up and get loaded without, you know, running into problems with my my logs, play it by ear. We'll just grab fuel and we'll see how we're feeling then. You'll have to look up what truck stops are around Lindsey and check out a few of my apps. See if there's a good place to park nearby or if I can park right at the customer or at the shipper. Sorry. I don't even know what I'm loading yet. I have no idea. No one's told me. All I've been told is instructions. I've given the address on the business. I guess I can Google the business to see what kind of products they make. I just haven't done that yet. Because to be honest with you, I don't really care. I don't care what they're going to put on my trailer. As long as it's legal and I can tie it down and it's not overweight. Doesn't matter to me at all. I will put anything on the trailer that you want to put on there. I'll bring it to where it needs to be. Slide right on West 60th Street North. Make sure I get close to the shipper. Turn right in 100-putting meters. Okay Karen, I know where I'm going. You need to get close to the shipper tonight. Close to the Canadian border either at from Detroit into Windsor or from Port Huron into Sarnia. I might take the Sarnia road because it's a little bit of a quieter border crossing. We'll see. Fuel pumps are busy right now. Approaching destination in 300 meters on the left side. I see it. I see it. Entrance, my friend. The exit is on the other side for this exact reason. 186 kilometers, we have three hours of driving. I've got to figure out if there's any truck stops down there. I use the app Trucker Path. There's so many ads Trucker Path. I know you've messaged me before if you're watching right now. Your ads are getting out of control. Every time I open the app I want to quickly find a truck stop. I'm like bam, bam, bam. Slap with three ads. Hey, would you like this? Hey, would you like that? Hey, would you? No, I want to know where I can park. Search for places. God, again! Lindsay, Nebraska. Type that in and it'll show me all the truck stops around that area. Stops in town, eh? The closest one might be over in the next town over. Exit would be right here on the right and that's definitely just parking spots. Oh wait, no, maybe it is over there right where that car came from. So there's quite a few parking spots available back here yet. Crammed up at the front and there's so much. Exit, I knew it. I remember this place. I've been here many times. I just haven't been here in a little while. Price here, our fleet price was $3.82 US per gallon. 36.6 per liter. Readers, turn right on. West 60th Street North. A few truck stops on my way as we get closer. There's a loves in Norfolk, Nebraska. A lot of truck stops on the way a little bit closer than that yet. So we'll be able to find somewhere to park, I'm sure. It's off the beaten path. Oh, look at this truck off on the left. Look at the plumes. It's tall. This truck stop is called Club 81. We're on US Highway 81, which makes sense. I'm gonna stop here for the night. We're just down the road from our shipper. This place isn't 24-hour, but it is a lit parking lot. It's not the brightest lot, but I feel comfortable parking here anyway. So in the morning, we'll go down the street, pick up our load, and maybe we'll come back here and check this place out. See what kind of coffee they got, because this will be on my way back east. So the load we're picking up tomorrow goes to Prince Edward Island. Nice big long trip. It should be a four-day trip or a four-day journey to get there from here. Tomorrow we won't quite make it back to Canada, but we'll be in Michigan somewhere tomorrow night. The following day we'll cross either at Detroit into Windsor or pour here on into Sarnia. I haven't decided yet. Figure that out as we go, and then go up in Ontario. Oh, excuse me. Pardon me. Probably get through Toronto, maybe even into Quebec, and the next day we'll go through the rest of Quebec up and around the top of Maine in Canada into New Brunswick.  I'm thinking I might park. I know this great truck stop in New Brunswick. It's in the northern part of New Brunswick there. I haven't been there in years, but I do remember it's a really nice place to stop. I forget where it is though. It's in the northern part right before you get to Quebec. A little about an hour from the Quebec border up there. We'll figure that out then. I'll stop for a reset somewhere and then we'll go get reloaded in Quebec. As far as I know, we're headed back home from there, so we'll be going through Ottawa probably. We'll say hello to our federal government as we go past there. Give them a special salute, and then through Northern Ontario, all the way back home. We've got quite a bit of miles ahead of us yet. We've got 4,000 kilometers approximately to PEI, and then 4,000 kilometers back. I've got, I think, about 8,000 kilometers between 8,000 and 10,000 kilometers in front of me, which is 5,000 to 6,000 miles, right? 5,000 to 6,500 miles. I'm pretty tired, as you can tell. I'm going to go right back there and go to sleep and put this all together tomorrow after I get loaded. That's my first priority. I have to get there on time. I want to be early, get loaded. We'll come back here, and then we'll assess the situation and figure out what's happening next. Thanks for joining me today, everybody. I know it was kind of just a cruising day. We've been empty all day, nothing on the trailer, so this load's gonna make up for it going to PEI, and let's hope it's a good trip. I don't usually take these long ones anymore, but every once in a while, we'll go visit our friends out east and see what they're doing. Take care, everyone. Stay safe, be safe, and drive safe. Talk to you.


It's not clear to me that the treaty in itself will necessarily lead to the creation of a common European bond. It may be that if countries respect the desire of the Germans and others of limited deficits over many years, that there will be a political climate in which Euro bonds could be created. But in and of itself I don't think the two necessarily go together. A European bond would be useful for a number of reasons, one of which is that it would be an instrument that banks could hold and use in monetary operations with the ECB rather than local sovereign debt and that would enhance their stability compared to the situation there are now where they're required to hold individual country sovereign debts and end up inevitably concentrated in their home country sovereign debts.


So now we look at the wave equation, and our standard equation we're going to be using here in physics for a traveling sinusoidal wave is this one you see here, and there's a lot of information here, so let's pull it apart piece by piece. First of all, the y over here is our vertical position, and it's a function of two other variables, x and t, where the x is the horizontal position and t is the time variable. So we're looking for what's the vertical position of the wave at some horizontal position along the wave at some particular time. Now in addition to those variables, we've got some sort of problem-specific constants. For example, the amplitude a, the phase phi, the angular frequency, and the angular wave number. So for these problem-specific constants, meaning for a particular wave, it starts with a set of these values. We need to take a look at these quantities in a little more detail. Start with the easy one, the amplitude. It's got the symbol of a capital A. Don't use a lowercase a, make sure it's a capital A. It represents the maximum displacement of the oscillator, and it can be measured in any distance units. A standard unit would be meters, but I could use other distance measurements like centimeters or feet as well. Then we get to the angular wave number. Now the symbol for this is k, and be careful because this is a new use for the symbol k. Previously we used the symbol k as the spring constant. This is not the spring constant. It's just another type of variable called the angular wave number that we happen to be using the same symbol for. It's related to the wavelength, and we'll take a look at that in a little bit more detail in another video. And my units, it has to be in units of radians per meter. Then we get to my angular frequency, which is very similar. It's got a symbol here of omega. And yes, this is the Greek letter omega. It's not a w. Remember the Greek letters referred to our rotational properties. And like the angular wave number was related to the wavelength, this is related to the period of the wave. And this angular frequency is then measured in units of radians per second. Then we get to the phase, and it's got the symbol here, which is the Greek letter phi. And it could be called the phase, but it can also be called the phase shift or the phase constant. And it's a measure of where the oscillation started in the cycle. So it can range between zero and 2 pi radians. And it has to be in units of radians for this equation. So now we can look at the overall units. Starting with focusing on this purple box here. K, the angular wave number, is going to have units of radians per meter, followed by meters for the horizontal position, radians per second for the angular frequency, seconds for the time, and then radians for my value of phi, the phase constant. Now my meters and my seconds on each of the first two terms, they end up canceling each other out because they've got the same thing on the top and the bottom. And that leaves me with radians minus radians plus radians, or just radians overall. So that means when I do the sign calculation here, I've got a number that's in radians and my calculator has to be in radian mode to do the sign. But once it's done the sign of that number in radians, there's no units on it anymore. Sign is a dimensionless unitless type of quantity. So that means whatever unit I have for the amplitude, like meters, I'm going to have the same unit for the vertical position on my wave. Why? And the standard is meters, but I could have other length measurements here as well. So that's your wave equation.


Can we just get through one day without the media proving they're about as trustworthy as the Iraqi information minister? Do they think everyone just forgot about their treatment of Brett Kavanaugh? Tempted rapers. There's no evidence besides one story. So you're saying are we back to you saying you don't necessarily believe Dr. Ford? I think rape culture is so pervasive that it's possible that he's not lying and still did. The woman who says Kavanaugh tried to rape her. The woman who says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her.  Kavanaugh held her down and she thought he was going to rape her. I believe he was going to rape me. I believed he was going to rape me. I believed he was going to rape me. The most serious allegation that Kavanaugh aided and abetted in the commission of a gang rape. Gang rapes and excessive drinking and aggressive behavior from Brett Kavanaugh. And a precipite in a gang rape?  Gang rape. Presumption of innocence.  Well, up until it's a Democrat being accused. As tired as I am of talking about this subject, at least it's not COVID-19. COVID-19.  COVID-19? COVID-19. Okay, maybe I am really starting to lose it. And this week we've seen him really be challenged for the first time in five weeks on allegations that many in the media have ignored. And finally those are coming to light. Well, I know we here at ABC have not ignored and many in the media have not ignored it. Liar. Ho ho ho ho, are you a bad liar? She can't even look at the camera she so ashamed. She really should have lost her job after she cried on the air because they lost the election. What an unprofessional hack. What is it with her anyway? She always looks like she's on the verge of an emotional breakdown. It still blows my mind when these supposed professionals lie so brazenly when there's easily found data that refutes her claim. Sorry for the interruption and we'll get right back into this episode. But first give me 30 seconds to tell you about this free offer for my subscribers. It's tough right now to get your hands on gold. Dealers just can't get enough, but we know it's time to protect your wealth. Time to protect your family. Did you know that you can buy, sell, and spend physical gold with Swipe with Gold? It's super easy with our mobile app to buy real gold for better financial security. Just visit www.swipewithgold.com and download the app. Register and your prepaid debit mastercard will be delivered by mail in just a few days for free. When you get your card you just load on your cash. Then you're rated a buy, sell, and spend in real gold. It's that simple. You can withdraw your money anytime at any ATM that accepts mastercard. So visit www.swipewithgold.com and download the app right now to get your free card and start using real gold as money. Not only did ABC News not cover this story going back to March 25th when the allegations first came to light, but they literally spent zero minutes on it up until April 30th. Her claim is that the other media outlets have also not ignored the story, but as you can see they actually spent more time on Pence not wearing his mask in one day than they covered the Biden allegations in a month. According to RealClearPolitics.com, MSNBC mentioned Biden's accuser one time in a month while CNN mentioned her nine times. By contrast, CNN mentioned Kavanaugh's accuser 1,898 times and MSNBC mentioned her 1,878 times. And it's not just TV media. Check out Wikipedia where the Kavanaugh allegations are front and center on his page while Biden is only mentioned one time and it's at the bottom of his page. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Turn off your TV and don't trust the media. I'm going to take issue with the media ignoring this. It has been appalling the hypocrisy as to how Brett Kavanaugh was treated versus Joe Biden. Brett Kavanaugh, every accuser was put on TV. It was wall-to-wall coverage. They went into his high school yearbook. They said he needed an FBI investigation. Michael Avenatti was on TV accusing him of gang rape from an accuser who'd never met Brett Kavanaugh. And then you go to Joe Biden, five weeks of silence, 19 interviews without a single question. He won't let people go into his records in the University of Delaware. They're calling on the DNC to do the investigation. It went from me to me to me to to move on, move on, move on in a nanosecond because he's a Democrat. And the hypocrisy is appalling and it's not just from the Democrats. It's from the media. And I'll tell you, I think any outlet that conducted those 19 interviews and didn't ask a single question should be disqualified from conducting any part of a presidential debate. I'll be honest. I've never heard of this woman before, but she needs to get out into the media more often. You won't find many Republicans who actually stand up for themselves in the media like this, much less call them out to their faces and then come back at them when they deny it. Radis is attempting to rewrite history here and most other Republicans would have just let her get away with it. Her point about these media outlets not being allowed to moderate the debates should be non-negotiable. I've never understood why the Republicans let these Democrat shills moderate their debates. You just can't trust them and there's almost no real journalist in the profession anymore. It'll be interesting to see where this goes, but the GOP better not budge. I'm tired of seeing our debates moderated by Democrat Party operatives. Afterwards, she interviewed the DNC chair, Tom Perez, and it was the predictable softball game you would expect. Joe Biden has been very clear, Martha, that this did not happen. He was forceful in that and he's been equally clear that when women come forward with complaints of this nature, they should be taken seriously. Their complaints should be investigated. They should be treated with dignity and he's done exactly that. You know what else Joe Biden said? He said, believe all women. That's something the media and the Democrats are desperately trying to cover up and rewrite now. Suddenly, due process matters again when a Democrat's being accused. Well, listen, there's been so many investigations of the vice president. The most comprehensive investigation of the vice president was when he was vetted by Barack Obama in 2008. They look at everything about you. They looked at the entire history of Joe Biden. Barack Obama trusted Joe Biden. I trust Joe Biden and those investigations have been done. Literally, everything he just said could have been said about Brett Kavanaugh. But they all just brushed aside those defenses and declared him guilty. Kavanaugh had undergone six previous FBI investigations to check his background and they found nothing. But none of that mattered for Brett did it. It's just more of what I'm constantly talking about. Enforcement of double standards by the Democrats and their media. Perez knows that the media has his back and he can be as hypocritical as he wants and receive no pushback. No doubt Raditz is rationalizing and telling herself that she's throwing out any shred of credibility for a good reason. That's all for this episode. Please hit that like button, share and subscribe. If you'd like to support this channel, you can do so on one of these platforms. You can find all the links in the description or pinned comment. Thanks for watching. Keep coming back.