now with with language there’s also
things to look at in language just a lot
of times it has to do with paying
attention so if I say to you Lisa you
know what time did you get home last
night and you say to me well you know I
usually get home around 6:00 did you
answer the question but you’d be
surprised how many people will let that
go and they will move on I didn’t ask
you what time you usually get home I
asked you what time did you get home
last night because people are trying to
avoid lying directly is that why they do
it yeah snips through the cracks it does
well look people we all know it’s wrong
to lie so we don’t like lying so the
most popular way we lie is through
omission we will leave something out we
will be vague in our language and so we
really want to listen to the language
are people answering your question when
you ask a question do they respond back
with a question who me
are you talking to me it could be a
stalling tactic yes it’s me there’s
nobody else in the room it’s just you
and I who else would be asking you and
to listening to the language that people
use also another indicator is usually
when we speak we’ll say I I feel this
way I this I went here I that III what
you’ll tend to see in verbal language is
somebody who doesn’t use I it means that
there’s a lack of commitment that
they’re telling you something but
they’re not committed to it so think of
the sentence if I say to you miss you
love you can’t wait to see you okay I
miss you I love you I can’t wait to see
you there’s more of a commitment on that
latter one so you can possibly assume
again assumption but the first person
really doesn’t miss you all that much
really doesn’t love you all that much
doesn’t care whether they see you and so
there’s so many clues and the things we
say then also how we say them you know
do people speak with conviction are they
vague so when it comes to deception
people who lie are typically vague
because when you’re lying there’s so
much more you have to remember there
won’t be as detailed Wow yes that was
far ago and everything is in the book
that they can find everything is so much
stuff but it’s all great stuff and it’s
all it’s all the little things like
there’s no gimmick there’s no like here
just do these three steps you will know
it’s it’s really understanding people
studying human behavior look I’m
fascinated by people and everyone’s
unique and everybody’s different and so
you want to learn people understand
people and the more curious you are
about people the more you’ll be able to
read them and think what matters is to
this person why would they lie to me
well what would there be there what
would be their incentive their motive
and that’s where empathy comes in using
empathy to understand somebody else’s
perspective see the world not through
your eyes through their eyes and even
something simple as when I would do
interviews with people I would sit in
the chair the person I would be
interviewing and would sit because I
wanted to see what does it feel like to
sit in this chair where are they looking
what are they staring at is their window
is their clock are they distracted by
something what does it feel like so talk
to people not the way you want to be
spoken to but the way they want to be
spoken to a way that resonates with
and how do you do that by talking less
and listening more because they will
give you clues and insight to who they
God that was fire that was amazing
and I think I know the answer to this
question because I think you just
answered it but what is your superpower
gosh my superpower I feel a lot you fail
a lot yeah
failure is my superpower the more I fail
the more resilient I become and the less
afraid I am of it
failure is my superpower I love that and
where can people find you in your new
book and you show that you’re on and
everything that you’re doing
so spy games is every Monday night on
Bravo it’s 10:00 p.m. Eastern and
Pacific and then 9 p.m. Central and then
my book is be called becoming
bulletproof and honestly like all the
stuff we talked about it’s in there and
I just took everything that I learned
that I was privileged to be in the white
house to be around these extraordinary
people to go through all this training
and my mindset was how do I help people
how do I serve people I don’t want to
write a book about me I wanted to write
a book that people could take and use in
their everyday lives because all that
stuff I use today with everything in
it was so vulnerable and there’s so many
things that go on around us like how do
we protect ourselves not just physically
but mentally different people you know
even people that don’t mean to harm us
harmless and so how do you how do you
navigate that world so it’s becoming
bulletproof you can get it on Amazon it
comes out in April and so I’m really
excited about that because again like I
just I want it to help people and I
really think that’s a book that really
can amazing and where can people follow
you Oh common spelling Greek name hat
Febby pauperis so a tvy pauperis and
then p oh um pou re s amazing we’ll put
all the links in the show notes as well
guys guys I have been waiting for this
episode and dying to get this woman on
for god knows how long and so I am a
giddy child right now I’m so freaking
excited that she was able to sit here
and give all those words of wisdom go
buy her book go follow her if you’re not
following me follow me at Lisa Billy and
if you’re not subscribe to this channel
guys and you do
I feel like this is bringing you value
please please do click that subscribe
button down there and until next time be
the hero of your own life
I have suffered from serious health
issues for close to four years now and
when I say I’ve tried everything well I
pretty much have I’ve been to countless
doctors read more books on health and
you can possibly imagine take an advice
change my diet change my lifestyle
change my workouts all in an effort to
help me get stronger get healthier and
as a result show up in my business and
my relationships with Han but I’m gonna
be real with you guys the biggest thing
I did was take ownership take ownership
over my own health because the truth is
no one cares more about your health in
you and so I started to track my own
results I started looking at how much
sleep I got and the correlation between
that and my mood and productivity enters
whoop it literally tracks all things
sleep from my sleep so I cause stages
disturbances and efficiencies and based
on how strenuous my day is we can
actually suggest when I should sleep so
my body gets the rest I need I also
started to track my workouts with whoop
to see if I was pushing myself too much
and as a result suffering from burnout
it has a built in feature that allows me
to track calories burn my heart rate and
what zone my heart rate is in in real
time and once I started to do that it
literally changed everything I was
finally able to improve my work
performance and to be honest more
importantly I’m just so much happier and
let’s face it isn’t really what we all
are going for so I’m so freaking excited
that we have teamed up with whoop and
today they’re offering 15% off to our
audience when you use the code impact at
checkout at whoop calm that’s woop wh
ooo P calm and use the code impact a
check out to say 15% off your order
take your life by the horns strap on a
root band and remember guys be the hero
of your own life
what up guys Lisa here thanks so much
for watching this episode and if you
haven’t already subscribed keep that
little bun-bun in front of you click
click click away we release episodes
every Wednesday so be sure to get
notified until next time go be the hero
of your own life
Jason and Sarah mansplain mansplaining. — Written by Sarah Cooper and Jason Kyle
Sorry, Ted Yoho. Having daughters doesn’t get you a sexism free pass.
Brett Kavanaugh invoked it. Mitch McConnell used it too. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck have each talked about it, and this week, Representative Ted Yoho joined their ranks: he, too, is now a member of the having-a-daughter-makes-me-an-ally-to-women — or at the very least, should-excuse-my-bad-behavior — club.
“Having been married for 45 years with two daughters, I’m very cognizant of language,” Representative Yoho said in a speech on the House floor this week, denying that he called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the freshman Congresswoman from New York, a “fucking bitch” after a confrontation on the steps of the Capitol.
Mr. Yoho later expressed regret for the “abrupt manner of the conversation,” in which he told Ms. Ocasio-Cortez that her statements about poverty and crime in New York City were “disgusting.” But, he noted, “I cannot apologize for my passion or for loving my God, my family and my country.”
On Thursday, in a speech on the House floor that has since gone viral — in which she read the vulgarity into the Congressional record — Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said, “I am someone’s daughter too.” She said she’d planned to ignore the insults — it’s “just another day” as a woman, she said — but changed her mind after Mr. Yoho decided to bring his wife and daughters into the fray.
Our culture is full of platitudes about fathers and daughters: the Hallmark card, the weeping dad at the wedding. But invoking daughters and wives to deflect criticism is a particular kind of political trope — and one that’s been used throughout history to “excuse a host of bad behavior,” said the historian Barbara Berg.
The love a man has for the female members of his family, particularly his offspring, is presumed to have special power — to humanize the other half of the population, to allow him to imagine the world his daughter will inhabit. Sometimes, in fact, this happens. Other times, the Daughter Excuse comes across mostly as cynical ploy.
“As if familial affiliation alone equals enlightened attitudes towards women,” said Susan Douglas, a professor of communication and media at the University of Michigan. “It’s like claiming ‘I have a Black friend‚’ as if that makes you anti-racist.”
There is social science that’s shown there is something to being the father of a daughter.
In a study called “The First-Daughter Effect,” Elizabeth Sharrow, an associate professor of public policy and history at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and her colleagues, determined that fathering daughters — and firstborn daughters, in particular — indeed played a role in making men’s attitudes toward gender equality more progressive, particularly when it came to policies like equal pay or sexual harassment protocols. The researchers also determined that those dads of firstborn daughters were, in 2016, more likely to support Hillary Clinton or a fictional female congressional candidate delivering a similar pitch.
“Our argument is not that it is genetics or biology, but that it is proximity,” said Dr. Sharrow. In other words: The daughters help the fathers see the problems they may have previously dismissed.
Or Dick Cheney, whose views on same-sex marriage shifted earlier than many might have expected because of his daughter, who is gay.
Daughters influencing fathers’ views for the better is far different from fathers using their daughters as “shields and excuses for poor behavior,” as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez described Mr. Yoho in her speech.
It’s also different from fathers using them as “props,” as Dr. Berg puts it, to emphasize their alignment with women’s causes — or, by contrast, their disgust over behaviors perceived to be in opposition to them.
Consider Justice Kavanaugh, who — during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford — spoke repeatedly of his daughters (as well as his wife and mother) and noted that coaching his daughter’s basketball team was what he loved “more than anything I’ve ever done in my whole life” — as if loving coaching and allegedly treating women badly as a teenager are mutually exclusive.
“Men have often pointed to their relationships with and love for some women — especially wives and daughters — to combat claims that they have mistreated other women,” said Kelly Dittmar, a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “We have seen this both inside and outside of politics, especially when men are subject to accusations of sexual harassment and assault.”
In the wake of the 2016 reports on comments made by Donald Trump on the now-infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, a host of fathers-of-daughters came out to condemn the behavior. Mr. McConnell noted that “as the father of three daughters” he believed that Mr. Trump “needs to apologize directly to women and girls everywhere,” while Mitt Romney said that the comments “demean our wives and daughters.” (It is perhaps worth noting that Mr. Trump, too, has daughters.)
Similarly, in response to revelations of sexual misconduct by Harvey Weinstein, both Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, who had worked with the disgraced Hollywood producer, expressed their disgust on behalf of their female offspring. We “need to do better at protecting our friends, sisters, co-workers and daughters,” Mr. Affleck said on Twitter, while Mr. Damon explained that “as the father of four daughters, this is the kind of sexual predation that keeps me up at night.”
Women, too, have at times invoked men’s daughters — and other female relatives — in trying to appeal to some men. When asked about Mr. Yoho’s behavior, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “What’s so funny is, you’d say to them, ‘Do you not have a daughter? Do you not have a mother? Do you not have a sister? Do you not have a wife? What makes you think that you can be so’ — and this is the word I use for them — ‘condescending, in addition to being disrespectful?’”
The caveat, of course, is the qualification. “Qualifying your outrage against misogyny as due to your role as a father or husband implies that, absent those roles, you would be either unaware of or unconcerned,” said Dr. Dittmar.
Or as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez put it: “Having a daughter does not make a man decent. Having a wife does not make a decent man. Treating people with dignity and respect makes a decent man.” Why should daughters still have to be a prerequisite to respect?
This spring I taught a seminar (via Zoom, of course) at the University of Chicago on the art of political persuasion. We read Lincoln, Pericles, King, Orwell, Havel and Churchill, among other great practitioners of the art. We ended with a study of Donald Trump’s tweets, as part of a class on demagogy.
If the closing subject was depressing, at least the timing was appropriate.
We are in the midst of an unprecedented national catastrophe. The catastrophe is not the pandemic, or an economic depression, or killer cops, or looted cities, or racial inequities. These are all too precedented. What’s unprecedented is that never before have we been led by a man who so completely inverts the spirit of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.
With malice toward all; with charity for none: eight words that encapsulate everything this president is, does and stands for.
What does one learn when reading great political speeches and writings? That well-chosen words are the way by which past deeds acquire meaning and future deeds acquire purpose. “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” are the only false notes in the Gettysburg Address. The Battle of Gettysburg is etched in national memory less for its military significance than because Lincoln reinvented the goals of the Civil War in that speech — and, in doing so, reimagined the possibilities of America.
Political writing doesn’t just provide meaning and purpose. It also offers determination, hope and instruction.
In “The Power of the Powerless,” written at one of the grimmer moments of Communist tyranny, Václav Havel laid out why the system was so much weaker, and the individual so much stronger, than either side knew. In his “Fight on the beaches” speech after Dunkirk, Winston Churchill told Britons of “a victory inside this deliverance” — a reason, however remote, for resolve and optimism. In “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr., explained why patience was no answer to injustice: “When you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity … then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.”
In a word, great political writing aims to elevate. What, by contrast, does one learn by studying Trump’s utterances?
The purpose of Trump’s presidency is to debase, first by debasing the currency of speech. It’s why he refuses to hire reasonably competent speechwriters to craft reasonably competent speeches. It’s why his communication team has been filled by people like Dan Scavino and Stephanie Grisham and Sarah Sanders.
And it’s why Twitter is his preferred medium of communication. It is speech designed for provocations and put-downs; for making supporters feel smug; for making opponents seethe; for reducing national discourse to the level of grunts and counter-grunts.
That’s a level that suits Trump because it’s the level at which he excels. Anyone who studies Trump’s tweets carefully must come away impressed by the way he has mastered the demagogic arts. He doesn’t lead his base, as most politicians do. He personifies it. He speaks to his followers as if he were them. He cultivates their resentments, demonizes their opponents, validates their hatreds. He glorifies himself so they may bask in the reflection.
Whatever this has achieved for him, or them, it’s a calamity for us. At a moment when disease has left more than 100,000 American families bereft, we have a president incapable of expressing the nation’s heartbreak. At a moment of the most bitter racial grief since the 1960s, we have a president who has bankrupted the moral capital of the office he holds.
And at a moment when many Americans, particularly conservatives, are aghast at the outbursts of looting and rioting that have come in the wake of peaceful protests, we have a president who wants to replace rule of law with rule by the gun. If Trump now faces a revolt by the Pentagon’s civilian and military leadership (both current and former) against his desire to deploy active-duty troops in American cities, it’s because his words continue to drain whatever is left of his credibility as commander in chief.
I write this as someone who doesn’t lay every national problem at Trump’s feet and tries to give him credit when I think it’s due.
Trump is no more responsible for the policing in Minneapolis than Barack Obama was responsible for policing in Ferguson. I doubt the pandemic would have been handled much better by a Hillary Clinton administration, especially considering the catastrophic errors of judgment by people like Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo. And our economic woes are largely the result of a lockdown strategy most avidly embraced by the president’s critics.
But the point here isn’t that Trump is responsible for the nation’s wounds. It’s that he is the reason some of those wounds have festered and why none of them can heal, at least for as long as he remains in office. Until we have a president who can say, as Lincoln did in his first inaugural, “We are not enemies, but friends” — and be believed in the bargain — our national agony will only grow worse.
Imagining Covid under a normal president.
This week I had a conversation that left a mark. It was with Mary Louise Kelly and E.J. Dionne on NPR’s “All Things Considered,” and it was about how past presidents had handled moments of national mourning — Lincoln after Gettysburg, Reagan after the Challenger explosion and Obama after the Sandy Hook school shootings.
The conversation left me wondering what America’s experience of the pandemic would be like if we had a real leader in the White House.
If we had a real leader, he would have realized that tragedies like 100,000 Covid-19 deaths touch something deeper than politics: They touch our shared vulnerability and our profound and natural sympathy for one another.
In such moments, a real leader steps outside of his political role and reveals himself uncloaked and humbled, as someone who can draw on his own pains and simply be present with others as one sufferer among a common sea of sufferers.
If we had a real leader, she would speak of the dead not as a faceless mass but as individual persons, each seen in unique dignity. Such a leader would draw on the common sources of our civilization, the stores of wisdom that bring collective strength in hard times.
Lincoln went back to the old biblical cadences to comfort a nation. After the church shooting in Charleston, Barack Obama went to “Amazing Grace,” the old abolitionist anthem that has wafted down through the long history of African-American suffering and redemption.
In his impromptu remarks right after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy recalled the slaying of his own brother and quoted Aeschylus: “In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.”
If we had a real leader, he would be bracingly honest about how bad things are, like Churchill after the fall of Europe. He would have stored in his upbringing the understanding that hard times are the making of character, a revelation of character and a test of character. He would offer up the reality that to be an American is both a gift and a task. Every generation faces its own apocalypse, and, of course, we will live up to our moment just as our ancestors did theirs.
If we had a real leader, she would remind us of our common covenants and our common purposes. America is a diverse country joined more by a common future than by common pasts. In times of hardships real leaders re-articulate the purpose of America, why we endure these hardships and what good we will make out of them.
After the Challenger explosion, Reagan reminded us that we are a nation of explorers and that the explorations at the frontiers of science would go on, thanks in part to those who “slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.”
At Gettysburg, Lincoln crisply described why the fallen had sacrificed their lives — to show that a nation “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” can long endure and also to bring about “a new birth of freedom” for all the world.
Of course, right now we don’t have a real leader. We have Donald Trump, a man who can’t fathom empathy or express empathy, who can’t laugh or cry, love or be loved — a damaged narcissist who is unable to see the true existence of other human beings except insofar as they are good or bad for himself.
But it’s too easy to offload all blame on Trump. Trump’s problem is not only that he’s emotionally damaged; it is that he is unlettered. He has no literary, spiritual or historical resources to draw upon in a crisis.
All the leaders I have quoted above were educated under a curriculum that put character formation at the absolute center of education. They were trained by people who assumed that life would throw up hard and unexpected tests, and it was the job of a school, as one headmaster put it, to produce young people who would be “acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.”
Think of the generations of religious and civic missionaries, like Frances Perkins, who flowed out of Mount Holyoke. Think of all the Morehouse Men and Spelman Women. Think of all the young students, in schools everywhere, assigned Plutarch and Thucydides, Isaiah and Frederick Douglass — the great lessons from the past on how to lead, endure, triumph or fail. Only the great books stay in the mind for decades and serve as storehouses of wisdom when hard times come.
Right now, science and the humanities should be in lock step: science producing vaccines, with the humanities stocking leaders and citizens with the capacities of resilience, care and collaboration until they come. But, instead, the humanities are in crisis at the exact moment history is revealing how vital moral formation really is.
One of the lessons of this crisis is that help isn’t coming from some centralized place at the top of society. If you want real leadership, look around you.
John Fea’s Virtual Office Hours: Fall 2015 Season – Episode 1200:08greetings everyone and welcome to the00:10virtual office hours this is episode 1200:12of our fall 2015 season my name is John00:16fee I’m your host here I teach American00:19history at messiah college Abby Blakeney00:21our producer as usual behind the camera00:23she’s back from Thanksgiving break which00:26basically means after today we only have00:28two more office hours to do here in our00:31fall season and as you really recall we00:34are thinking about the place of America00:38as the role of America should say as a00:42Christian nation and how people00:44perceived of America throughout much of00:47American history how people perceive00:49themselves as living in a Christian00:50nation some of you remember that July00:54hopefully in July sometimes in the00:56summer the second edition of my book was00:58America founded as a Christian nation01:00will be out so we will be revisiting01:03we’re here revisiting that things are01:04getting ready for that release now again01:07just a caveat I’ve been making this01:09caveat before when we talked about the01:11idea that Americans believed that they01:14were living in a Christian nation we of01:16course are stating that historically01:19that’s a historical statement it’s not01:21an ethical statement it’s not a moral01:23statement so again if you want to argue01:26with my premise here that America it has01:29always seen itself as living in a01:31Christian nation what you would need to01:33do is you would need to look at the01:35evidence I’ve mounted both in the book01:37and over the course of the last 1101:38episodes and try to suggest that no01:42Americans didn’t think that they were01:44living in a nation that was Christian01:46that would be a historical critique of01:49what I’m doing as opposed to it so the01:50ethical or political critique to say01:52people are wrong for believing that that01:55they lived in a Christian nation this is01:58again the difference between historical02:00thinking and other kinds of thinking my02:04point is historically whether they were02:06right or wrong whether they were02:07following what the founders truly02:09believed America has always understood02:12themselves as living in a Christian02:15nation at least up until the 1970s as02:17we’ll see you next week or maybe the02:18week02:18after today I want to focus on civil02:22rights movement now religion and02:25christianity has been a dominant theme02:28recently in among scholars who were02:30writing about the civil rights movement02:32and the way they’re writing methyl02:34Christianity and forms are had informed02:37the civil rights movement thinking here02:39especially of David Chappelle’s book02:41stone of hope in which he points to an02:44Old Testament prophetic tradition that02:47that really defined the vision of the02:50civil rights movement what I want to02:52focus on quickly with you today’s I want02:54to think about one particular episode in02:56the civil rights movement and that is02:57Martin Luther King Junior’s visit to the02:59city of Birmingham in April set of 196303:03it’s in that year that King come South03:06comes to Alabama to fight against03:09segregation in that city many of you03:11know the story he is eventually put into03:14prison by the public safety commissioner03:17of the city Eugene Bull Connor and while03:20he is in prison he writes what becomes03:22known one of it as one of his most03:24famous pieces of writing the letter from03:26a Birmingham jail now that letter is03:29written from prison obviously and it’s03:31addressed to the white clergy in the03:35city of Birmingham and most of these03:37white clergy that he’s writing to03:39believe that segregation should be03:41handled locally they don’t like king03:43they think he’s an outside agitator03:45who’s coming in and disrupting the good03:48order of the city which is pretty much03:50based upon racial segregation so King03:54writes this letter it’s published it’s03:55put out in the pamphlet form so it gets03:57a kind of national ventually gets a kind03:59of national audience and it’s a04:01fascinating argument because on one hand04:03King is arguing for a a nationalist04:08vision right where there is if there’s04:11injustice anywhere or injustice anywhere04:14i should say is a threat to justice04:15everywhere in other words he’s a04:20challenging localism he’s challenging04:22the idea that local governments local04:26clergy get to decide what is right and04:29what is wrong on this04:30question of race and thus challenging04:32segregation in the process so he appeals04:34to people like Abraham Lincoln and04:36others these great figures of American04:39nationalism to say you know we you know04:42we have to we have to stop the kind of04:44localism that’s going on we have to stop04:47these local prejudices and local ideas04:49especially if they’re challenging what04:51he believes is justice and king secondly04:56sort of defines justice through his04:59vision of what it means to be a05:01Christian so he’s making constant05:03appeals in the in letter from a05:05Birmingham jail about just laws and05:08unjust laws right he’s referencing05:10people like everybody from Agustin to05:13Aquinas to Paul Tillich the modern05:17theologian to he’s going back to the05:19Bible and showing how Shadrach Meshach05:22and Abednego in the Old Testament05:24challenged King Nebuchadnezzar who is05:27putting an unjust law upon them so this05:31idea of civil disobedience is rooted in05:33the Bible it’s rooted in theology at the05:38same time then King is bringing these05:41two ideas together this idea of05:43nationalism vers / localism and this05:47Christian idea of justice to suggest a05:49new vision for the nation which is going05:52to be defined by the idea that we are05:55indeed a judeo-christian country and we05:58must live up to the principal’s not only06:01of our founding fathers but the06:02principles as well of God I think he06:06summarizes this very very well in06:09towards the end of the letter and if I06:12can just find it here I want to make06:15sure i get the wording right where he06:17says he basically says he reminds the06:20birmingham clergy here that he’s06:22standing up for quote what is best in06:25the American dream and for the most06:27sacred values in our judeo-christian06:30heritage thereby bringing our nation06:32back to those great wells of democracywhich were dug deep by the foundingfathers in their formulation of the06:39constant06:39tution and the Declaration of06:41Independence again it’s a powerful06:43convergence here of American values06:46national values and Christian values and06:50King is calling us to a sort of06:52different kind of Christian nation a06:54sort of beloved community in which06:56people are not judged by race or by the06:58color of their skin so clearly here even07:02Martin Luther King a man of the left a07:04man of the civil rights movement makes07:07his case based upon many of these07:11Christian nationalists kind of07:14sentiments that we’ve seen all the way07:16in American history all the way from all07:18the way back in the early 19th century07:20we have two more episodes to go will07:23hopefully get to the end of the07:24twentieth and twenty-first century here07:26in the meantime thanks for watching and07:29we’ll see you next time