After Drake and Josh became Nickelodeon's highest rated series premier in nearly 10 years. After Drake and Josh in 2006 ranked consistently among the top 10 most watched television shows of the week and became the top rated live action series amongst children aged 2 to 11 years old and averaged 3 million viewers at the time. After Drake and Josh won 13 awards, received two films and broke the record of the most viewers for premiere of a Nickelodeon film with 9 million viewers. Drake and Josh has been off the air for 14 years now. Believe it or not, beginning its run in 2004, the Nickelodeon show enjoyed four seasons of solid ratings before its ending in 2007. With 56 episodes, Drake and Josh has been labeled as one of Nickelodeon's most successful television programs of all time. When Drake and Josh was in its final season, the show experienced its highest ratings ever. The last ever episode, really big shrimp, was Nickelodeon's most viewed live action show at the time, having pulled in nearly 6 million viewers. However, it was later broken by their own holiday special television, Merry Christmas Drake and Josh, when it premiered in 2006. The series led to a Drake and Josh soundtrack, two video games and a book series published by Scholastic. In fact, the show was never actually cancelled. The stars had grown up and it was time to head out to the big world of Hollywood and try something new. Fans will also be happy to hear that there is a potential reunion in the works. The series featured two teenage stepbrothers, Drake Parker and Josh Nichols, who lived in San Diego, California with Drake's biological mother Audrey, younger sister Megan, and Josh's biological father Walter. Drake is cool and popular, having his own band and being a ladies man, yet is known to be absent minded, while Josh is the intellectual, clumsy and awkward brother, yet very loving and caring. The two boys are often involved in comedic adventures and challenges, while also handling an array of teenage problems. In Josh and Drake go to Hollywood, the boys accidentally send Megan to Los Angeles instead of Denver, and they end up stopping a multi-billion dollar heist and booking a guest spot for Drake on TRL. While in Merry Christmas Drake and Josh, the boys try and give a foster family the best Christmas ever. Since the show's finale, the cast has gone on to do their own work, and some of the headlines are insane. One of the brothers went on the file bankruptcy for losing his home, had his music career hampered by a horrible injury, and serving jail time for his second DUI. While the other brother recently became a star as Scott Turner on Disney Plus's upcoming TV adaptation of Turner and Hooch, in addition to becoming a successful Vine star and starting a comedic lifestyle YouTube channel, Shaw Vlogs, featuring David Dobrik, his wife, Paige Osborne, and many other Vlog Squad members. It appears that Hollywood hit much different for Drake and Josh. What's going on guys, it's Clyde Smith, and today we're doing a series titled Where Are They Now, where we are taking a look at the star-studded cast of Drake and Josh and what they're up to these days. I mean, maybe you know a bit about Drake and Josh and what they're up to. I mean, the stories have been crazy. If you want to see more Where Are They Now's, let us know down in the comments who you want us to document next. Anyways, let's get into this video. Drake Bell's reputation as the lovable child star was tarnished after a number of controversies including legal issues and allegations of abuse. Things went downhill fast for Bell in 2013 when he filed for bankruptcy. Bell claims that he reportedly only made $14,000 that year, way down from the $400,000 he banked the previous year. Bell claims that he is only pulling in $2,820 a month, but his expenses totaled a whopping $18,771. In addition, Bell owed a ton of cash and taxes. With no other option, Bell was forced to take his $2 million home and sell it, as it was foreclosed the same year and listed in 2014. Drake fell off the wagon again shortly after the release of his long-awaited third record, 2014's Rock Ability, inspired by ready, steady go. However, the album bombed as it peaked at 182, more than 100 spots lower than his previous album. Things got worse for Drake when he suffered what doctors told him would be a likely career-ending injury. In November 2014, Bell shattered his wrist, driving into a swimming pool, and he tweeted that doctors say, I will most likely never play guitar again. Bell tweeted, it's over. But lucky enough, that turned out to be untrue. However, Bell was forced to take a lengthy break to recover and never really made a comeback. While fans may have not seen a lot of Drake Bell's face after his run with Drake and Josh, if you're into superheroes, chances are you may have heard his voice. Drake went on to play the iconic Marvel character Peter Parker, also known as Spider-Man in the animated series Ultimate Spider-Man from 2012 to 2016. Drake also reprised a role for Avengers Assemble between 2013 to 2015. In fact, Bell became such a favorite among Spider-Man's super fans that many wanted him to be given a shot to play Peter Parker in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, Drake eventually lost out on the role to star Tom Holland. Drake made headlines for the wrong reasons yet again after Caitlyn Jenner's transition. He tweeted, sorry, still calling you Bruce, which he eventually deleted. After receiving backlash, Drake doubled down with, I'm not dissing him, he said. I just don't want to forget his legacy. He is the greatest athlete of all time. Greatest of all time. I don't know, maybe LeBron James or Serena Williams has something to answer for that. Drake also went after Justin Bieber online after the Bieber and Lil Zah drama where he was arrested for drug possession. Drake tweeted at Bieber, how much are you paying Lil Zah to take the Coke rap for you? Be a man and take responsibility.  Drake also went on to be arrested for two DUI charges, the first coming in 2010 after he was caught allegedly driving under the influence the year before in San Diego, though he did manage to avoid jail time. On December 21st, 2015, for driving under the influence in Glendale, California at 2.45 a.m., police officers witnessed him swerving and driving well over the speed limit. In September 2016, Bell was found guilty and sentenced to four days in jail, in four years probation and would be required to attend an alcohol education program. Bell served only one day for good behavior. In August 2020, his former girlfriend, Melissa Linfield, posted a TikTok video where she accused him of verbal and physical abuse during their three-year relationship in the late 2000s. Bell has denied the allegations and claimed that Melissa asked him to provide her with financial support during a rough time, which he did. It appears that between the two brothers, Josh has certainly had an easier transition from being a former child star. Some of Peck's film work after Drake and Josh includes The Whackness, Drillbit Taylor, and was also the voice of Eddie in the Ice Age film series. In addition, Peck had reoccurring roles on Fox's The Mindy Project from 2013 to 2014 and voiced a character on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles from 2013 to 2017. Peck also developed a strong relationship with John Stamos after starring alongside him on Grandfathered from 2015 to 2016. Both Peck and Stamos are nominated for a 2016 People's Choice Award in the category Favourite Actor in a New TV Series. Fun fact, Grandfathered was the only time Drake and Josh were reunited on screen from their former child star days. In February 2020, it was announced that Peck had been casted in the title role of US Marshal Scott Turner II in the sequel series of which is set to be released on the streaming service Disney Plus. In addition to staying busy in show business, Josh is quite the social media influencer as well. Josh was a prominent personality on the video sharing service Vine prior to it being shut down and continues to be active on Snapchat. Peck made several features on David Dobrik's vlog, becoming a frequent contributor to the vlog squad series before pursuing his own YouTube channel. However, despite Dobrik and Josh being longtime friends, as of April 3rd, all traces of the YouTuber vanished from Peck's Instagram page. Peck literally scrubbed every mention and picture of Dobrik from his account going all the way back to 2019 when Dobrik won a Nickelodeon Kids Choice Award. Peck is an active influencer on Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, where he has 10.5 million followers, 3.7 million subscribers, and 3.5 million followers, respectively. In addition, Peck also currently has a podcast called Curious with Josh Peck, produced by Ramble, where he interviews celebrities such as Jon Stamos and Bob Saget discussing not only current topics, but their personal lives. In June 2017, Peck married his longtime girlfriend, Pedro Bryan, while former Drake and Josh star Drake Bell was infamously not invited to the wedding. In August 2018, the couple announced that they were expecting their first child, their son Max, who was born in December. There was a lot of wedding drama between the two, as Drake famously tweeted, when you're not invited to the wedding, the message is clear. True colors have come out today, messaging is loud and clear, ties are officially cut. I'll miss you, brother. The tweets were quickly deleted. However, the internet was quick to snag some screenshots of the drama. Apparently, Josh claims that he got the worst of it, as people literally yelled at him on the street, asking why he didn't invite Drake to the wedding. However, the two have since made up, and Josh's response was that he didn't think Drake would actually come to the wedding. Plus, he left all the planning to his wife. Okay, I think I'll bring this where they now to an end, right here. After checking out the cast members of Drake and Josh, what did you guys think? If you'd like to see more of this series, please be sure to let me know who's next down in the comment section below. My name is Clyde Smith, and I'll see you guys in the next video. Peace.


Hi everyone, happy Friday, Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com coming at you with Jaspys Big Hit Express Multisport series five, six box break number seven from jaspyscasebreaks.com. Thanks to everybody for getting into the action right here, really appreciate it. So we did six, that's just uploaded, so we're here at seven, did I grab the right list for break seven? Yes, I did, the one that starts with DJ and ends with Eric K, right there at the end. And let's grab the teams right here. Those are how all the teams are grouped, let's pop them in here. I know there's a little bit of spacing right here, but they'll all match up together. And I need the list of, I need a blank list right here. I need a list of cases. So let's go back to the hit list list where I'm keeping track of all the, for the hit list promo. Scroll up, I'm also keeping track of the case numbers right here too. Now in case, I forget to erase a case on this. And if that case that we've already done is randomized top, we'll just go to the second one, I don't think it's gonna be a big deal. All right, let's roll it, let's randomize it. Four and a three, lucky seven times for case number seven. All right, so let's do names and teams first before we do the case. One, two, three. And seventh and final time, after seven we got Corey down to Eric. Seven times for the teams. Six, seventh and final time. After seven we got the Indians, New York football giants and the Nuggets down to the Giants Raiders Bulls group. Remember, we inadvertently forgot to add the brewers to this list. So if we pull a brewer, it'll be randomized to one person in the break just like we did last time. I don't think there's too many brewers, but there is like a significant brewer, I think, at least one left. All right, let's get all this on one screen right here. Corey, there's your block of teams there. And if you want to trade, you got to trade one entire block for another entire block. It can't just be Giants for Cardinals or something like that. All right, so Corey, there you go. Ken, Eric, Joey, Danny, Nick.  Nick, Christopher, Danny, Richard, Chris, Jason, Ron. Nicholas, Christopher, Daniel, Chris, Chris, Josh, Proust. Good team in there. Kang, Travis, Corey, Ollie, Robert, Ron, Ron, Nancy, Joey, Joey, Matt, Matthew, DJ, and Eric. Now I'm gonna put this all on one screen just for a second here. We're gonna sort by your first names right here. And then I'll show you the list again with it alphabetized right there. So you can see all your block of players all at once. And I think it should help when you're in the trading window too. We've got some trades too. Ron Wester has the, that Reds Washington football team group up for trade. Ollie has the Phillies, Falcons, and Blazers group up for trade as well. And here are the rest of the crew here. There you go. Now I'm gonna flip away from the screen just for a second. Let's go grab a case. So let's randomize that seven times. One, two, three, four, five, six. Good luck, cases, seventh and final time. And after seven times, case 21. 21's like yay. Here we go. Case 21, if you look at the top camera right there, you can see case 21 showing up there, there it is. You can see, you see, you see, it's case 21. All right, any trades? Or anyone need to see their names again? I don't know, just kind of scroll up and down a little bit. No, maybe not. All right. TWC trade window close. Are you number 21 Logan? Yeah, you're up to bet. Let's print out that list. Actually, you know what? I'm gonna print out afterwards. I'm gonna start bolding the, yeah. Okay, I'm just trying to help the shipping team out. All right, so let's pop this baby open. Let's see what we got. Big hits. All right, there you go. So there's the six boxes there. There's six boxes right there. There you go, be sure to follow us at Jasper's Breaks on Instagram, at Jasper's Breaks on Twitter. I like that logo, right? I wanna turn this into a T-shirt. What do you think? Maybe a hoodie for the winter? What was everyone thinking about that? All right, first one out of the gate is in a slider box here. What do we got? We have a Jumbo plus Relic book card from 2020 Triple Threads Baseball. And woo, a one of one, Josh. That Pirates font is always pretty sick. Got a big one right there and the two smaller ones right there and a one of one. Yeah, people like the idea of that as a hoodie. Maybe we'll have to make that happen. Pirates, the buckos. That goes to Eric K and the Pirates-Lions-Milwaukee-Bucks combo. Eric, all aboard the Big Hit Express. Woo-hoo, that is nice. All right, nice start. No worries, Roach. All right, we got some train fan. That nephew's a train fan? All right, he doesn't love the train. Does your nephew watch? He would love the train whistle. Next player is a basketball player. It's Seiku Damboya, rookie, gold ink auto out of Noir basketball. Love this Noir. One, two, three out of one, two, five. Spotlight signatures. These look really sharp. That goes to Corey and the Niners Tigers Pistons group. All right, what do we got here? A graded card. I see more basketball. Gemmint 10, PSA 10. Taco Fall. Nice. With a tie-dye prism, which I love. Nice autograph, nice parallel, excellent grade. 10, a Gemmint grade actually, not an excellent Gemmint grade. 11 out of 25, that's great. That goes to the Boston Celtics, who has the Cs. That goes to the Seahawks, Cardinals and Celtics combo, Ron Wester. Nice. What do we have here? Oh, wow. Select gold vinyl, World Series champion, Dustin May. And hopefully a long time fixture in that Dodgers rotation. Who's got my Dodgers? The Champs. Danny Connell with the Dodgers Browns Suns group. All aboard, the Big Head Express. My friend. We got another graded card. I see a nine-five, just a nine-five. And it's prism fireworks, Yanis Antte Compo. Nice. Centering is a 10, surface is a nine-five.  Surface is a nine for a total grade of a Gemmint nine-five. And that spot hit twice. Eric Kay with the Pirates-Lions-Milwaukee-Bucks combo. And the sixth and final box here in break number seven. Yeah, wrote a bi-lottery ticket, Eric. Powerball, mega-millions. I think they're both over a hundred million dollars. All right, and the final one is gonna be, I don't, is this even on the cell sheet? It's Kyler Murray in his college gear, two-color patch, on-card, that's probably one of the best Kyler Murray autographs I've seen. On-card autograph one of one for the Arizona Football Cardinals. That's for Kang and the Cardinals-T-Wolves combo. There you go. All aboard the Big Hit Express. Woo-hoo. And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, another excellent break, another PSA 10 break in the books. Thanks for watching. I'm Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com. That was Big Hit Express Series Five, Random Team Seven, our latest repack product curated by us, just for you. Sorry, like high-end one right here. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next time for the next one. Bye-bye.


Welcome to George H. Smith's Excursions into Libertarian Thought, a production of Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute, narrated by Daniel Highland. Intellectuals and Libertarianism, Thomas Sowell and Robert Nisbitt. In Knowledge and Decisions, 1980, Thomas Sowell claims that the delegation of decision-making to experts has become the central feature of the intellectual's vision of political and social decision-making. Economists and other social scientists often portray themselves as disinterested advisors, as efficiency experts in effect, whose advice should be heeded by those in positions of political power. Why have people been willing to surrender so much power to economists, sociologists, psychologists, educators, and other self-proclaimed experts in the realm of human action? Sowell has some interesting observations on this topic. It has seldom been because of any demonstrated success. Crime rates have soared as the theories of criminologists were put into practice. Educational test scores have plummeted as new educational theories were tried. Indeed, no small part of the intellectual's achievement has been in keeping empirical verification off the agenda. Moreover, those who are more essentially intellectual in occupation, primarily producers of ideas, have been both more avid and more favored in power terms than those who produce tangible benefits in verifiable form. It is not the agronomists, physicians, or engineers who have risen to power, but the sociologists, psychologists, and legal theorists. It is the latter group who have transformed the political and social landscape in the United States and much of the Western world. Not only is much of their cognitive output inherently unverifiable empirically, they have by various definitions and axiomatic procedures made their output even less susceptible of authentication than it would be otherwise. The jargon alone in these fields makes their substance largely inaccessible to outsiders. Transitionism explains away all disastrous consequences as the short-run price for long-run triumph. They have conquered by faith rather than works. This is hardly surprising in the light of similar achievements by religious intellectuals who preceded them by centuries. Whatever has made human beings eager to hear those who claim to know the future has worked for modern as well as ancient intellectuals. Social science experts, according to Seoul, are the modern secular equivalents of a priestly class, but with this difference. Social scientists writing on the prestige of the physical or hard sciences claim to render objective judgments free from personal bias or values about what will promote the good of society or sometimes humanity as a whole. Intellectuals who associate with governments typically pride themselves on their objectivity, especially when opposing what they characterize as special interest groups. But such intellectuals have merely hidden their personal values under the mantle of science. In truth, they are just another special interest group with a political agenda. The late Robert Nisbet, a prominent American sociologist who, though usually called a conservative, had strong libertarian tendencies, had some rather harsh things to say about his colleagues who disguised their political values as objective science and who sought to ensconce themselves in positions of power. In 1982, Nisbet published a terse commentary in his book, Prejudices, on the social sciences and their role in modern American society. Economics, long considered the most successful of the social sciences, was raised to a near aristocratic level in the late 1930s, owing to the tremendous influence of John Maynard Keynes. It was in the 1950s, however, when economics achieved the prestigious reputation of an exact mathematical science that the services of professional economists were eagerly sought by politicians. By the late 1950s, social sciences other than economics also enjoyed tremendous prestige and money rolled in from both governmental and private sources, such as the Ford Foundation, with billions in assets. Other foundations rallied and by the middle of the 1950s, it was a rare social scientist of quality who did not have the perquisites of status that physical scientists had known from the beginning of World War II. Research institutes mushroomed in the social sciences. Offices became ever more luxurious, their occupants ever more engaged in research, consultation, government advising, travel from conference to conference all over the world, in just about everything but the teaching of undergraduates. A responsibility increasingly turned over to graduate students and technicians. The prestige of some social sciences began to decline precipitously in the 1960s, reaching a low point in the following decade. By 1970, what a sociologist, political scientist, social psychologist, or anthropologist said on any subject whatever, was for the American people generally a matter of no consequence. The credibility they had enjoyed for nearly two decades after World War II was in tatters, their numbers depleted, and their capital assets nearly gone. Now that economics has joined them, the drama is over. The rise and fall of the social sciences complete. Why had the public prestige of the social sciences suffered a dramatic setback by 1982? The year Nisbet published his comments. Social scientists, Nisbet points out, typically gave three standard and self-serving reasons. First, social scientists complained of insufficient funds. To this, Nisbet replies that abundant funds have never been a condition of progress throughout the history of the physical sciences. Second, we were told that the social sciences, unlike the physical sciences, are still in their infancy, so we must forgive their many mistakes. To this, Nisbet retorts that the social sciences are not new at all, but originated like the physical sciences in ancient Greece. Third, social scientists typically excused their blunders by pointing to the complexity of social data. To this, Nisbet points out that physical sciences also confront highly complex phenomena, but they have progressively succeeded in overcoming this obstacle. So much for self-pity, says Nisbet, who then suggests more compelling reasons for the diminishing prestige of the social sciences. There is first the ostentatious scientism that came over the several disciplines in the 1950s. It was apparently assumed that if their practitioners walked like scientists and quacked like scientists, the world would believe they were scientists. More and more writing in the social sciences came to look as though it had been done by a mediocre chemist or geologist. The second reason for the current disrepair of the social sciences is the megalomania that came over them in conjunction with their scientific posturing. As early as the 1950s, only a few years after the social studies had begun dressing up like sciences, there was the cry for such monstrosities as a National Academy of Social Science, a National Endowment for Social Science, and a National Social Science Foundation. Further cries went up for such positions as Social Science Advisor to the President in Washington. The land overflowed with the complacency of the social scientists. All that was needed for the instantaneous eradication of poverty, crime, racism, bad housing, and war was a political government duly advised by resident social scientists. Hubris, pride virtually demanding the fall. The third reason is what Nisbik calls the rank politicization of the social sciences. The word social originally signified voluntary institutions, such as the family, village, parish, town, and so forth. The social sphere of voluntary interaction was contrasted with the political sphere of coercive government. So when early social theorists spoke of social problems, they were not necessarily calling for political action. This is no longer the case. Modern social scientists have blurred the distinction between the social sphere and the political sphere, making them virtually indistinguishable. Thus, when a modern social scientist identifies something as a social problem, it is a safe bet that he is looking for a political solution, one that should be implemented by the coercive mechanism of government. In this way, the social scientist disguises his personal values and aspirations behind a veil of objectivity. This masquerading of political agendas as a value-free science brings us to Nisbik's fourth explanation for the dismal public reputation of the social sciences. Since World War II, social scientists, with the notable exception of many economists, have been nearly unanimous in their advocacy of political liberalism. By liberalism, Nisbik means the new liberalism of 20th century America, the ideology of the provider state, not the older tradition of classical liberalism, which advocated minimal government and individual freedom. As Nisbik explains, it would be hard to find in all history a more flagrant scene of hypocrisy than that which was presented by social scientists, pretending to be scientists, assuring the world that objectivity was quite as possible in the study of human beings as of atoms. But all the while making certain that their assorted hypotheses, principles and conclusions emerged in a fashion that would make them presentable at any liberal caucus. The litany of liberalism was the litany of social science, with the possible exception of a small but growing sector in economics. Any social scientist's conclusion that did not end with an appeal to the national government to take immediate action, properly funded, was purely accidental. Those who attended meetings of the various associations during the 1960s and 1970s could have been forgiven for not being sure whether it was a professional meeting or a monster rally in behalf of all the liberal and radical icons. The public prestige of the social sciences has probably increased since Nisbik wrote these remarks in 1982, but little else has changed. Indeed, if anything, the social sciences have become even more politicized. Today, it is scarcely possible to open a serious magazine or newspaper or watch a television news program without encountering some political, social or psychological expert who offers his or her opinion, scientific of course, on the latest trendy social crisis. Moreover, the results of a scientific study or survey will often be cited and accepted as gospel, as if the imprimatur of a prestigious university, think tank or governmental agency automatically guarantees its accuracy. Especially relevant for libertarians is Nisbik's observation that the boundary line between the social and the political has virtually disappeared in modern discourse. This had long been a crucial distinction for individualist thinkers, such as John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, who clearly differentiated the voluntary realm of society from the coercive realm of government. Given this distinction, to engage in social science or to discuss social problems, did not necessarily carry political implications. Jefferson, for example, believed that city life tends to weaken moral values, but he did not call upon government to solve this social problem. A social problem was just that, an undesirable consequence of voluntary interaction. And a social problem called for a social solution, i.e., a voluntary, cooperative effort by concerned parties to bring about a better state of affairs. Today, of course, the situation is much different. For many people, especially politicians, merely to identify something as a social problem is implicitly to suggest that government should impose a coercive solution. Faith in the efficacy of coercive methods. A belief dear to those whom the sociologist Robert Merton dubbed bureaucratic intellectuals, was characterized by Herbert Spencer, one of the founders of modern sociology, as the great political superstition. This is the magical belief that a group of individuals calling itself a government can bring about results that would be impossible for those ordinary mortals who act whether individually or in concert with others by voluntary means. With little or no demand for their services in the voluntary marketplace, bureaucratic intellectuals serve as court counselors who can implement their personal values, not by persuasion, but through the coercive mechanisms of legislation, judicial decisions, and administrative decrees. Thank you for listening to Excursions. To learn more about libertarian philosophy and history, visit www.libertarianism.org.


So I'll talk about this, but the theme, I'd say the theme about 2020 for me, and I hope this came across on the show, on the shows over the year. But the theme of 2020 for me is people's epistemology is much worse than I thought it was. People's epistemology is much worse than I thought it was. So people's ability to actually think, to think beyond the binary, to think beyond the us versus them, to think beyond the obvious, to think beyond what they're being fed by the particular media they happen to be consuming. That to me is the most scary phenomena of 2020. All right, Alejandro, now you have to, now you have to figure out what 500 Norwegian Krona is in order to add to that amount. But we should be getting very close, very close here to 2000. And I am busy copying and pasting all these super chat questions. And now I know we're going to go three hours because just answering all these questions is going to take me forever. If you look at the COVID response, if you look at the election response, if you look even at the response to BLM, if you look across the board at the people's response to, on the right and on the left, to a variety of different cultural phenomena, to a variety of different things, their inability to think about them, their inability to articulate in their own mind, to think about what is actually going on, what are the facts, what do they know versus what don't they know? I think 500 Norwegian Krona is more than that. So it should be, I think, more than 1600. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought 500 Norwegian, maybe I'm confusing with a different currency. Maybe somebody can do the math. Oh, it's $50. Okay, then it makes sense. Sorry, my confusion. I think I'm thinking of Australian dollars, which is significantly more. The inability to think about facts, think about what are not facts. Nicholas, thank you. Thank you, really appreciate that. So think about what are facts and what are not facts, what reality and what is not reality. Think about what evidence is. Think about what proof is. Think about what you as an individual know versus you as an individual don't know. I guess I'm so disappointed in humanity. Maybe I shouldn't be. I'm so disappointed in people's inability to make those separations. You're seeing that with the election fraud issue. You saw that with, again, with COVID all the time. People not getting statistics. People not getting risk. Thank you, guy. Binoal. It's great to see you back here. Thank you for being on the chat. Thank you for the support. It was so disappointing to see in people's response to Trump and people's attitude towards Trump, particularly people's attitude towards Trump. You know, I have known this from day one, but over the last year or so, truly, you know, truly disappointing. And again, from a thinking perspective, and again, I'm not talking about everybody who voted for Trump. I'm talking about specifically about the people who are Gaga over Trump, who couldn't imagine anything that Trump could do that they would disagree with, that they thought would be wrong. People have viewed it only as a completely tribal issue. I see it with regard to the vaccines, the irrationality with regard to the vaccines. So I guess when, in the past, I'd say mostly when I looked at a year and I said, what was the philosophical kind of a lesson? I'd say, well, on the negative side, I'd say altruism is alive and well. Altruism is everywhere in the culture. I think this year, and this must have been true, it must be always true, right? Because it's not like 2020 people changed. What became real in 2020 is the extent to which the fundamental problems in the world are epistemological, problems of thinking, problems of objectivity, problems of objectivity and ability to think rationally and focus on facts. So to me, that's the big lesson of the year. And even when you think of BLM, right? So the three big stories I think this year were COVID, the elections and BLM. You think about BLM, you think about critical race theory, defund the police, and Tifa. I mean, people buying into that without thinking. And then later they might have changed their minds because they realized, oh my God, what does this actually imply?  The extrapolation from that. On the left, we're all racist. Everybody's racist. There's systemic racism. The whole world is racist. Not the whole world. The world is fine.  And people just buying into that record and then going and supporting BLM without doing any kind of research on what they represented and who they were and what they stood for. And there was ultimately a backlash, I think, even on the left against BLM. Once people realized that when they were marching, it wasn't just police brutality, it wasn't even just racism. They were marching to do things like defund the police. They were marching to destroy capitalism and bring about socialism. And a lot of people, whoops, changed their minds. But again, jumping on a cause, jumping on a bag wagon, jumping to support something without thinking, without evaluating. Racism is bad. Therefore, anybody who puts up a sign saying I'm against racism, everybody jumps on that. Everybody suddenly supports that. Everybody becomes without thinking. Again, without really considering what is going on. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figured at least 100 of you actually like the show.  But at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this.  So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.


Hi friends welcome to my channel I am Aarpata Karva and in this video I am going to talk about a short short way in which you can make a timetable to crack UGC net examination. Now guys we know that net is a very very tough exam, I would say it is one of the toughest exams of India and the syllabus is unbelievably extensive plus you have a lot of pressure when you are sitting for this exam mental, emotional even financial pressure because most of the students who give this exam are of about 23-24 years of age they have cleared their masters and now are sitting for this exam so they have a lot of financial pressure on themselves as well. So in this video I am going to talk about how you can make a timetable of very simple one using which you can easily clear this exam but before we talk about timetable it is important to know why it is important to make a timetable. Frederick Nyshe a very famous friend philosopher said that if you are sure of your why then you can take care of any house in your life and this is the reason why we are going to first talk about why timetable is important and only then we are going to look at how to make a timetable. So the very first thing is timetable helps to solve the problem of chaos in your life. So most of the time what happens is when we start preparing for this exam sometimes we don't feel that we are in the mood to study. Now this is where timetable comes into the picture because when you have defined the timetable for the entire year then whether you like it or not you have to stick to it. So most of the students when I talk to them I find that one year timetable is made in 20 minutes. Now this is a very serious business people you cannot create a timetable for entire year in just 20 minutes and for an exam as crucial as UGC net. So today in this video I am going to talk about some important ways in which you can make a timetable that is sustainable and a timetable that requires a proper structure so that you cover the syllabus in a part and then by the time you reach the exam date you are able to properly revise all the topics. So rather than making a timetable which is about Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday and you are fitting what all things you have to study it is better than you make a timetable which is sustainable because if you have not read something on Monday then on Tuesday you will have a double pressure of doing things that you are supposed to do on Tuesday and also doing things that you have not done on Monday. So it is a very pressure related game so to avoid that pressure I am going to give you another method to make a timetable which will help you prepare for this exam in a stress-free manner. Now to know how to make a timetable you have to first self-analyze yourself. Even in Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna says to Arjun that you have to first understand yourself Arjun only then you will be able to fight a war as important as Mahabharata. Similarly you as an Arjun have to understand that what is your requirement what kind of timetable are you aiming for. If you are a college going student your timetable will be extremely different from a student who is not going to a college and just studying from home. If you are a homemaker your timetable will be extremely different from someone who is going to a job and balancing UGC-Net preparation along with the job.  But guys in all this you don't have to lose focus. Alexander Graham Bell said a very important line he said that when you concentrate all your thought upon the work at hand that is the time when you can create wonders. The sun's rays do not burn until brought to a focus. Sun rays is everywhere in the earth but when you put a lens towards it and when you direct the rays towards a paper then that paper starts burning that is the power of focus. So analyze yourself and then decide the number of hours you are going to focus for this particular exam. In order to make a timetable you have to first understand the 3M model which was actually laid out by Toyota. Now Howard has been a great follower of this model and this model is actually taught to MBA students in Howard. So what is this Toyota way? Toyota as we know is a Japanese company which makes car and they have a Japanese business model. I am not here to promote Toyota car but I am here to tell you about the 3M model. Now what are these 3Ms? The first M is Muda. Muda stands for wastefulness. Muda is a Japanese term which is translated as wastefulness in English. Now wastefulness means topics that are 100% not going to be asked in the exam. So you have to exclude all the topics from your timetable which are extremely wasteful which will not come in the exam. For example in case of UGC net exam the first topic that we start studying is Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Normal period. Now from this particular age only one question is asked and that to sometimes it is not a guarantee that every time a question like that will flash in the paper. So this topic is going to come under the Muda category. It is a wasteful topic that you can exclude. You should not be studying. The second M is Mura. Mura means imbalance or inconsistency. Now a lot of people have this habit of getting indulged in Mura. We always overestimate what we can do in one day and we always underestimate what we can do in 10 years. And this is the main principle of Mura, imbalance. We will study for 20 hours one day and we are not going to study for 3 days in a sequence. What will happen? We are going to get into a state of imbalance or inconsistency and that is what we have to avoid. We have to do things consistently. You have to ensure that if you are studying today for 2 hours it is fine. You should be studying for 2 hours for the next consecutive all days. Studying for 2 hours is not a problem. Studying for 10 hours one day not studying for 10 more days is a problem. So stay away from the issue of Mura. Understand and remember the age old saying, slow and steady wins the race. And now we come on to the third M that is Moori. Now what is Moori? Moori means overload. That means when you try to overload yourself so much you cannot sustain that process for long. For example you might start doing British literature at one point in your day then you suddenly decide that you are also going to do paper one and then you suddenly decide that you are also going to sit for a 2 hour mock. Now you overload yourself so much that you will not be able to sustain it. You will get tensed, you will get fatigued and then you might not be able to continue the process. So stay away from overloading yourself, go slow and steady and follow the 3 M's of the Toyota model. So that is very important. Why I am not talking about timetable right now, why I am giving you so much context before I actually start giving you a timetable because the vaccine will work when actually the patient comes to know. So let us first understand what goes wrong with us only then we can understand how we can cure it. So till now in the video I have actually told you that what is the problem that most of the students face and now I am going to take you to a model wherein I am going to put forward in front of you how you can cure that problem. So now that we have understood the problem let's get on to the solution. So we are going to talk about the Kanban model of making a timetable. Now what is the Kanban model? It is a very very easy model which says that you have to divide any task of your life into 3 parts. Task to do, task that you are doing and task that are done. Now what does it mean? That means anything that you have to do has to either be in one of these 3 categories. So for example there are 20 chapters that you have to study for UGC net exam. Now you have to ensure that all the 20 chapters are further divided into topics and subtopics. So you end up making about a list of 100 subtopics that you have to study for the exam. Now all these 100 topics will first be in the category of to-do because that is what you have to do. You have to start working on those topics, start reading, making notes, learning them. Now every day you choose one or two topics from the to-do list and you put it in the doing category where you start doing those tasks. For example you have chosen a topic like TS Eliot from the subcategory. I am talking about people who are studying for UGC net English. So you have chosen that topic TS Eliot. Now that topic goes from to-do to doing list. And in the doing list you start doing that topic. So for example TS Eliot takes 2 days for you to complete. So for 2 days TS Eliot remains in the doing section. And once you have made notes, you have learned it, TS Eliot moves to the done section. And that is how you have to keep on doing things for each of the topic. What generally we do is that we are going to put all the topics in the to-do. Then we are going to take 10 topics from the to-do. We start working on it and we get so complicatedly involved in those topics that nothing goes out of the doing section to the done section. So there is one topic which we have just covered 40%. There is another topic which we have only covered 35%. There is one topic which is on the finishing stage 90%. But we are not completing it to the 100% and it does not move to the done list. Guys understand, nothing is more satisfying than tick marks. So ensure that every day you decide which topics you are going to pick from the to-do section and move to the doing list. So if today you know that you have 10 hours. So you took a topic from paper 1, that is teaching aptitude. Even within the teaching aptitude, you took a sub topic, maybe evaluation system. And you know that I will take 5 hours to complete this topic. So today you took this topic, studied it thoroughly, made notes, and today you move it to the done section. And then you take another 5 hour topic, work on it and then move it to the done section. What are the benefits of this? The first benefit of Kanban technique is that you will be better organized. You will get to know every day which topics are your children, which topics you are working on and which topics you have completed. Secondly, you will avoid burnouts. It will not happen that you are studying a lot and studying less.  That time you will take some topics from to-do, start working on them. If they are not finished, then they will shift to tomorrow. Tomorrow you will complete the topics in the doing category. And then you are going to take any new topic from the to-do category. The third benefit is that it is very, very effective.  And you are going to send me a thank you card once you start using it. Because this is as effective as something that you might not have used and you don't know how valuable it can be. And number 4, you will be always aware of where you stand. You will know every day how much portion of your syllabus you have completed. So that is what is going to give you satisfaction. You will get away from the fear of unknown. If you know that you have some topics left that you take for 100 hours and the exam is after 30 days, then you can calculate today that how many hours you will have to study for 30 days so that you complete these topics. And that is how you are going to get satisfaction. So as your topics go to the done category from to-do, your confidence will go up. Most of the students don't feel confident during the exam because their topics are not done, they are in doing. They have read a lot of topics but they have not completed them completely. So all those topics are in doing on a 50% or 70% or 93% stage. So I hope that this video will prove fruitful in your preparation journey. If you are looking for any such more videos, feel free to put that in the comment section below and I will be more than happy to address them in the next videos. Otherwise, if you are looking for UGC Net preparation material, then please don't forget to go on and check out the website arpathakarwa.com. We have courses related to paper one and paper two English literature. We also have a special mock test series for people who are preparing for UGC Net English. Those mock tests are divided into different units. So once you complete a unit, you should be giving a mock test and check how much you have completed that unit. How confident do you feel after doing that unit? So with that note, I would like to take your leave. That's it from my side for this lecture. I'll meet you very soon in the next video lecture. Till the time I meet next, happy learning, keep loving literature and stay tuned to arpathakarwa.com.


One of the ways we've managed risk in the past is through insurance, so we all pay a premium into a common pool of money When something bad happens to us like our house burns down We get a payment out of that pool and and that means that instead of having a huge shock to the system Which we can't cope with we've been able to manage that by constant small payments And that's been a really great way of managing some risks and when we look in the past those risks have relatively been Consistent in the sense of they're relatively the same risk from year to year the same probability of something bad happening But we don't know which year that's going to happen and that's why insurance is good But increasingly we're seeing the probabilities of an event happening a bad fire happening or a flood happening changing And that means that our insurance needs to change as well So it needs to be include the sorts of things that are changing so House on a floodplain is much more likely now to get flooded than it used to be so the insurance premium needs to go up to Compensate for that risk So that's one of the ways we can manage it other ways of course not build on floodplains or in fire prone areas Or if we do to ensure that our houses are floodproof or fireproof and and so increasingly we're seeing Many different things come together to manage risk So we're seeing location is really important the way we do things is really important how we respond to events such as a Cyclone coming in we've got warning now so we can actually prepare for that And we can also start to put in place regulation That ensures that people actually are doing the right thing in a building houses Which are cyclone proof in northern Australia? And so we can start to think about managing that risk in many different ways But with climate change an important part of managing that risk is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions So we don't ramp up the extreme event increases that we've seen already So climate change is already making extremes worse pretty much all over the world And if we let climate change rip that's going to be even worse and worse over time