One of the fun things about Tom Lehrer is his tendency to switch up his lyrics somewhat between performances so that no two recordings of his songs are ever alike.
Hallelujah! When will he play live? I need to drive into Boston anyway. If I miss another celeb bf it's too late (Phil Ochs, Leonard Cohen) I'm a gonna be SO pissed at myself! 🎶
@@hilakummins3104 I don't think he's preformed since the late 90s and when he did that it was also many years since his previous performance. I think he stuck to teaching maths.
I think it's jasmine and teargas - you know, the plant - unless he means he's going round sniffing saxophonists. Although I admit that's an arresting image.
The crazy thing is that, if it is true, one former slave was still alive at the time of this recording. It was Sylvester Magee, who was allegedly born in 1842, who did die in 1972. If it was true, he grew up in the pre-emancipation American South, and lived to see the entire Apollo lunar program and space race. He also claimed by his own recollection to have served in both the Confederacy and the Union, in that order. Since he was illiterate, and he had no birth certificate, apparently having been a slave, there is little proof of this other than his verbal retelling of events.
Pam Miller why shouldn't (at least some) get it? They're at a Lehrer concert after all, I guess that requires a certain kind of humor and intelligence as well as education. Otherwise you wouldn't get the humor, I think.
As alluded to in an earlier comment. A Danish audience would more than likely has understood Lehrer. They like him well enough to attend the concert and guess what, they understand more than just one language.
I myself am from Turkey and I have gotten most of it. Besides the part about pallegra and the boll weevil (I had to look those up). But again, I am a bit of a history and geography buff
@@martaleszkiewicz5115 Agreed. It's almost like Americans are raised with an imaginary box on their head that inhibits them from wanting to be the most intelligent, and well-rounded person that they can be. I think that's okay for me to say, I've lived in America my whole life. 🤷🏻♂️
Certainly they wouldn't have understood some of it today. 55 years ago, English language learning, even in Denmark, wasn't what it is today, so perhaps some understood even less at that time in the audience. Lehrer sings quickly and there is a longer processing time for your 2nd or 3rd language. Additionally, there would have been historical or cultural references that would have gone over their heads. My wife is a German doctor and speaks perfect English, but she wouldn't get half of these references.
Kinda cool to see a recording from almost 60 years ago, filmed in a place I've been to so many times. Falkoner Centret changed so much, but so little since then
I wonder if he foresaw this basically becoming a theme song for half of modern America? This basically describes every American carrying a confederate flag and shouting about election fraud in 2021/2022.
@@lordfarquaad2319 [This is a multi-part reply, please read all subsequent replies] I will answer your question in great detail momentarily but note that your statement (linguistics aside) is false, out of context, and therefore highly misleading. Before we go on, it is prudent to clarify the difference between graduation and proficiency requirements. First and foremost, this bill does not touch on graduation requirements; it does not change which classes students take, nor does this bill redefine what is considered essential subjects. Every student is still required to attend and pass the same classes their predecessors did. In the United States, high school education is a standard of four years; beyond that, the graduation requirements are determined on a state-by-state basis. While all states have some graduation requirements, most states do not have proficiency requirements. Before COVID, Oregon required* students to demonstrate at least a sophomore-level proficiency in math and English. Essentially, you had four years to master two years in those subjects. As mentioned, though, this requirement by Oregon is not the national standard, so suspending these requirements is by no means radical. To further complicate the matter, despite this "requirement," *the state does not list any particular standardized test as a requirement to get a diploma, meaning this proficiency requirement exists solely on paper for better defining the goals of the curriculum. This begs the question of why these requirements need suspension in the first place, and the problem is that not all schools seem to be able to satisfy these requirements when operating under the current standardized curriculum. The original exception was not about lowering the standards to enable more people to graduate but rather an attempt to compensate for the impact of COVID. With that established, let's get into the bill itself. First, I think it is worth mentioning that the body of SB 744 (the bill you refer to) explains that math and English are essential requirements. Second, it is vital to note that the graduation requirements for math and English were not eliminated; they are suspended for no longer than three additional years. "Additional" is the operative term there, as SB 744 is not the bill that suspended the requirements; rather, it is an extension to an existing motion that suspended the requirements during the COVID lockdowns. With that preliminary explanation out of the way, allow me to provide context for what transpired in Oregon. First, as mentioned, what you are referencing is not the suspension of the requirements but rather the suspension's extension. Late last year Gov. Brown indeed extended the original suspension; this was partially done after it was found to benefit "students of color." Stick a pin in that; I will return to this term shortly. Before we understand why that reasoning exists, let's first understand why the original exception was passed. The original 2020 exception is a Covid regulation to assist students struggling with learning from home. As all politicians pointed out, especially conservative ones, learning from home is not as effective as being taught in a classroom under most circumstances. School districts have found that students have significantly fallen behind in their studies all over the nation. The knowledge gap is most prominent in minority districts (Put a pin in that; I will expand on this soon) and Republican-controlled states, but that is neither here nor there. When the suspension was first passed, the intent was not to penalize students or stunt their growth for out-of-control circumstances. When COVID hit, juniors and seniors who expected to have more time to complete their studies found themselves in a situation where it became significantly more challenging. There was no consideration for who the students were; it was done without regard to race or status. Now we are ready to discuss the extension. The first of the two primary reasons for this extension was continuing the above line of thought. To quote Charles Boyle, the governor's spokesman, "[the extension] gives Oregon students and the education community a chance to regroup after a year and a half of disruption caused by the pandemic." The circumstances that necessitated the original bill, as discussed above, were found to exist still. Essentially, juniors and seniors were not the only groups deprived of their four years of education; COVID also impacted first- and second-year students. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would require the same assistance. This bill explicitly targets all students who attended high school from home and the incoming Freshman class that was not adequately prepared for high school. In other words, it expends the original bill to cover all people who are most at risk of not graduating due to COVID, not only those who were graduating from home. While both bills essentially do the same thing, a key difference is the second justification for the extension. Whereas the original exception was agnostic in its justification, the extension notably also called out "students of color." That said, when used out of context, that phrase is misleading. For one, the phrasing was used as a "catch-all" term akin to "etcetera." The full quote from Boyle is, "Oregon's black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color." You will notice a pattern there, besides black people who emphatically get a worse public education, most of the people specifically pointed out are people with native languages which are not English and different cultures. This information is vital to understanding the second reasoning provided for the extension. It is a fact that minority communities have a lower baseline graduation rate; therefore, these communities were disproportionately impacted by COVID. In other words, the people who would most benefit from this extension were already at a disadvantage going into the pandemic, namely the groups mentioned earlier. To quote Boyle again, "SB 744 gives us an opportunity to review our graduation requirements and make sure our assessments can truly assess all students' learning." COVID, while terrible, has exposed many problems in our establishments and has provided us with much insight. As it pertains to education, not only did we learn a lot about remote learning, but it has provided us with new data regarding the differences between the people who would have graduated despite COVID and those who would have graduated if it were not for COVID. Past data was only able to at those who graduated compared to those who did not. In essence, the wording of the bill says that if we're already extending these provisions, we may as well use this time to review the data and update the curriculum so that once the suspension expires, more students will be able to meet the standard, which remains unchanged.
@@lordfarquaad2319 [Second part] Before I go, I would like to address one last matter, the argument that this lowers academic standards. As previously mentioned, this temporary change brings the standards in Oregon more in line with other states. If we follow the logic that this lowers standards to an unacceptable capacity, other states' standards are unacceptably low. Considering most of the bill's detractors are Republicans from states with lower standards than Oregon, that line of criticism is highly hypocritical unless followed by an immediate move to raise the standards in those states, something which has not happened. Lastly, let us ask: does the short-term impact of this change matter at all? No. Because this does not change the requirements, it means people who were already on track to graduate will not be impacted, which are the majority of students. The minority of students who would graduate thanks to this will be able to get better jobs that will most likely not require them to know algebra. Most importantly, it means that we will start having more students able to graduate to this higher standard in two to three years. A minimal short-term impact and a beneficial long-term impact. The cost-benefit analysis is a no-brainer. To expand on the second point about students who would otherwise have not graduated with the above-average standards of the State of Oregon and its impact on society, you provided a prime example that I would now like to address. Given your concern regarding the alleged lowering of education standards, I presume you value education to some extent and perhaps even graduated high school. If that is true, given that you made five elementary school-level linguistic errors in a single sentence, I would argue that the existing standards are probably already so low that the short-term effects of this change have no impact. Allow me to explain: I believe that in your reply, you were trying to ask: "Didn't Oregon make math and English not mandatory in schools to help 'students of color?'" To that end, please allow a poor immigrant to whom English is a third language to educate you. First and foremost, notice my use of "make" to your use of "made." You started your sentence with "didn't," a past tense auxiliary verb, and followed it with a past participle. Auxiliary verbs, also known as "helping verbs," are always followed by a main verb in its infinitive form, otherwise known as a basic verb, always in the present tense. Fun fact: describing a singular action that has already happened using a singular past tense verb without any additional context forms what is known as a "simple past tense" sentence. Past participles such as "made" are only used in what are known as "perfect tense" sentences. Furthermore, past participles are effectively used as adjectives despite technically being verbs. "Make" is a transitive verb denoting an action, whereas "made" describes an action. There were no proper verbs in the original sentence since auxiliary verbs imply a tense rather than action, and past participles function as adjectives. The lack of a proper verb renders it essentially meaningless. You made a second error by not capitalizing "English," a proper noun. Your subsequent two errors are using "to be," not only a redundant adjective given the use of "make," but also an adjective used to describe something that will happen in the future. Using a future tense adjective to describe something that has already transpired does not make sense. Lastly, in American English, punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks.
@@XDSDDLord Huh, what an enormous amount of text just to defend the idea of giving lower standards to minorities instead of actually solving the problem, also, yes, it is racist to lower your standards based on someone's race
Do not think Tom Lehrer a Communist, but more of a comedic satirist. Hebisb probably more left wing than right, which is his right under a democratic system.
Vinny, man... doesn't it worry you that you assume people who condemn racism can't be on your side ideologically? Maybe, just maybe, there's something wrong with your ideology if that's the case...
@@unsuisseegare1291 because denigrating an entire region for a cultural practice that has existed everywhere in the world and still exists in some places is obnoxious. No slavery in the South since 1865. Let’s hear a song about the slave traders that founded all those IvyLeague schools . That would be hilarious doncha think? Or a little ditty about the current slave owners that exist today.
Oh, my! Your inability to understand what you've seen/heard is amusing, although a bit sad.What's being ridiculed in the song isn't 'an entire region', for a cultural practice that has existed everywhere in the world and still exists in some places or for any other reason. It's making sport of those people who (at the time the song was written & performed, and to this very day) express an apparent longing to return to that time, place and way of life. 🙂 @@pammienakh
@@bobs.2008 So it’s directed at all the people in the world that prefer slavery or made money off of slavery and wish to continue doing so? Rethink it.
One of the fun things about Tom Lehrer is his tendency to switch up his lyrics somewhat between performances so that no two recordings of his songs are ever alike.
One of a kind. and he's still with us at 91.
now 92
Hallelujah! When will he play live? I need to drive into Boston anyway. If I miss another celeb bf it's too late (Phil Ochs, Leonard Cohen) I'm a gonna be SO pissed at myself! 🎶
@@hilakummins3104 I don't think he's preformed since the late 90s and when he did that it was also many years since his previous performance. I think he stuck to teaching maths.
@@kristentortellini9137 yeah he retired from his music career. People have tried asking him to get out of retirement, but he never does.
American Legendary Satirist !!...Mark Russell is another favorite of mine
This song has aged shockingly well
*depressingly well.
@@drgrey7026 *inspiringly well.
@@RabbiHerschel*concerningly well.
Wonderfully well!
It’s a satire song for all those who don’t know…
I think it's jasmine and teargas - you know, the plant - unless he means he's going round sniffing saxophonists. Although I admit that's an arresting image.
Jasmine, a southern flower, and tear gas because of the race riots in the 60s! Both have their own "unique" odor, one quite beautiful.
Clever.
it reminds me of "Scent of magnolia, sweet and fresh/Then the sudden smell of burning flesh" from Strange Fruit
Still around
Born 63 years after the end of the US Civil War.... Tommy is still alive today... In June 2021.
Still kicking today at 96
So glad to discover Tom, what a talent. Only wish I had caught his tribute show last night in Santa Cruz. Next year!
Jeffrey, have youcaught it?
My favourite version of this song :)
The crazy thing is that, if it is true, one former slave was still alive at the time of this recording. It was Sylvester Magee, who was allegedly born in 1842, who did die in 1972. If it was true, he grew up in the pre-emancipation American South, and lived to see the entire Apollo lunar program and space race. He also claimed by his own recollection to have served in both the Confederacy and the Union, in that order. Since he was illiterate, and he had no birth certificate, apparently having been a slave, there is little proof of this other than his verbal retelling of events.
Where the jazzmen and the teargas smell just fine
Jasmine, not jazzmen
Some things never change
I wonder if any of them "got" it?
Pam Miller why shouldn't (at least some) get it? They're at a Lehrer concert after all, I guess that requires a certain kind of humor and intelligence as well as education.
Otherwise you wouldn't get the humor, I think.
In my experience, Europeans get everything, or at least a lot more than us Americans get in general.
As alluded to in an earlier comment. A Danish audience would more than likely has understood Lehrer. They like him well enough to attend the concert and guess what, they understand more than just one language.
I myself am from Turkey and I have gotten most of it. Besides the part about pallegra and the boll weevil (I had to look those up). But again, I am a bit of a history and geography buff
LOL I don't think that the people of Copenhagen, Denmark really got all of the references. I suppose I wouldn't expect them to.
Europeans "get" more references about the American culture than Americans tend to give them credit for.
@@martaleszkiewicz5115 Agreed. It's almost like Americans are raised with an imaginary box on their head that inhibits them from wanting to be the most intelligent, and well-rounded person that they can be. I think that's okay for me to say, I've lived in America my whole life. 🤷🏻♂️
@@martaleszkiewicz5115 they would've been shocked or laughed if they did
Come on they laughed at the wife joke BUT NO REACTION TO THE KKK JOKE?!
I don't get the references at all. Can anybody help me here?
Certainly they wouldn't have understood some of it today. 55 years ago, English language learning, even in Denmark, wasn't what it is today, so perhaps some understood even less at that time in the audience. Lehrer sings quickly and there is a longer processing time for your 2nd or 3rd language. Additionally, there would have been historical or cultural references that would have gone over their heads. My wife is a German doctor and speaks perfect English, but she wouldn't get half of these references.
Kinda cool to see a recording from almost 60 years ago, filmed in a place I've been to so many times. Falkoner Centret changed so much, but so little since then
How right this was!!!!
L’il old Me is over 7 feet tall and towers over me whenever I meet him, so not so little...
thanks for the link have a great day
thx fo uplod'n! :D
Agreed
Da best!
I wonder if he foresaw this basically becoming a theme song for half of modern America? This basically describes every American carrying a confederate flag and shouting about election fraud in 2021/2022.
>implying that's anything new
it's been like that since forever
Didn’t Oregon made math and english to not be mandatory in schools to help “students of color”?
@@lordfarquaad2319 [This is a multi-part reply, please read all subsequent replies]
I will answer your question in great detail momentarily but note that your statement (linguistics aside) is false, out of context, and therefore highly misleading. Before we go on, it is prudent to clarify the difference between graduation and proficiency requirements. First and foremost, this bill does not touch on graduation requirements; it does not change which classes students take, nor does this bill redefine what is considered essential subjects. Every student is still required to attend and pass the same classes their predecessors did.
In the United States, high school education is a standard of four years; beyond that, the graduation requirements are determined on a state-by-state basis. While all states have some graduation requirements, most states do not have proficiency requirements. Before COVID, Oregon required* students to demonstrate at least a sophomore-level proficiency in math and English. Essentially, you had four years to master two years in those subjects. As mentioned, though, this requirement by Oregon is not the national standard, so suspending these requirements is by no means radical. To further complicate the matter, despite this "requirement," *the state does not list any particular standardized test as a requirement to get a diploma, meaning this proficiency requirement exists solely on paper for better defining the goals of the curriculum. This begs the question of why these requirements need suspension in the first place, and the problem is that not all schools seem to be able to satisfy these requirements when operating under the current standardized curriculum. The original exception was not about lowering the standards to enable more people to graduate but rather an attempt to compensate for the impact of COVID.
With that established, let's get into the bill itself. First, I think it is worth mentioning that the body of SB 744 (the bill you refer to) explains that math and English are essential requirements. Second, it is vital to note that the graduation requirements for math and English were not eliminated; they are suspended for no longer than three additional years. "Additional" is the operative term there, as SB 744 is not the bill that suspended the requirements; rather, it is an extension to an existing motion that suspended the requirements during the COVID lockdowns.
With that preliminary explanation out of the way, allow me to provide context for what transpired in Oregon. First, as mentioned, what you are referencing is not the suspension of the requirements but rather the suspension's extension. Late last year Gov. Brown indeed extended the original suspension; this was partially done after it was found to benefit "students of color." Stick a pin in that; I will return to this term shortly.
Before we understand why that reasoning exists, let's first understand why the original exception was passed. The original 2020 exception is a Covid regulation to assist students struggling with learning from home. As all politicians pointed out, especially conservative ones, learning from home is not as effective as being taught in a classroom under most circumstances. School districts have found that students have significantly fallen behind in their studies all over the nation. The knowledge gap is most prominent in minority districts (Put a pin in that; I will expand on this soon) and Republican-controlled states, but that is neither here nor there. When the suspension was first passed, the intent was not to penalize students or stunt their growth for out-of-control circumstances. When COVID hit, juniors and seniors who expected to have more time to complete their studies found themselves in a situation where it became significantly more challenging. There was no consideration for who the students were; it was done without regard to race or status.
Now we are ready to discuss the extension. The first of the two primary reasons for this extension was continuing the above line of thought. To quote Charles Boyle, the governor's spokesman, "[the extension] gives Oregon students and the education community a chance to regroup after a year and a half of disruption caused by the pandemic." The circumstances that necessitated the original bill, as discussed above, were found to exist still. Essentially, juniors and seniors were not the only groups deprived of their four years of education; COVID also impacted first- and second-year students. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would require the same assistance. This bill explicitly targets all students who attended high school from home and the incoming Freshman class that was not adequately prepared for high school. In other words, it expends the original bill to cover all people who are most at risk of not graduating due to COVID, not only those who were graduating from home.
While both bills essentially do the same thing, a key difference is the second justification for the extension. Whereas the original exception was agnostic in its justification, the extension notably also called out "students of color." That said, when used out of context, that phrase is misleading. For one, the phrasing was used as a "catch-all" term akin to "etcetera." The full quote from Boyle is, "Oregon's black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color." You will notice a pattern there, besides black people who emphatically get a worse public education, most of the people specifically pointed out are people with native languages which are not English and different cultures. This information is vital to understanding the second reasoning provided for the extension. It is a fact that minority communities have a lower baseline graduation rate; therefore, these communities were disproportionately impacted by COVID. In other words, the people who would most benefit from this extension were already at a disadvantage going into the pandemic, namely the groups mentioned earlier.
To quote Boyle again, "SB 744 gives us an opportunity to review our graduation requirements and make sure our assessments can truly assess all students' learning." COVID, while terrible, has exposed many problems in our establishments and has provided us with much insight. As it pertains to education, not only did we learn a lot about remote learning, but it has provided us with new data regarding the differences between the people who would have graduated despite COVID and those who would have graduated if it were not for COVID. Past data was only able to at those who graduated compared to those who did not. In essence, the wording of the bill says that if we're already extending these provisions, we may as well use this time to review the data and update the curriculum so that once the suspension expires, more students will be able to meet the standard, which remains unchanged.
@@lordfarquaad2319 [Second part]
Before I go, I would like to address one last matter, the argument that this lowers academic standards. As previously mentioned, this temporary change brings the standards in Oregon more in line with other states. If we follow the logic that this lowers standards to an unacceptable capacity, other states' standards are unacceptably low. Considering most of the bill's detractors are Republicans from states with lower standards than Oregon, that line of criticism is highly hypocritical unless followed by an immediate move to raise the standards in those states, something which has not happened.
Lastly, let us ask: does the short-term impact of this change matter at all? No. Because this does not change the requirements, it means people who were already on track to graduate will not be impacted, which are the majority of students. The minority of students who would graduate thanks to this will be able to get better jobs that will most likely not require them to know algebra. Most importantly, it means that we will start having more students able to graduate to this higher standard in two to three years. A minimal short-term impact and a beneficial long-term impact. The cost-benefit analysis is a no-brainer.
To expand on the second point about students who would otherwise have not graduated with the above-average standards of the State of Oregon and its impact on society, you provided a prime example that I would now like to address. Given your concern regarding the alleged lowering of education standards, I presume you value education to some extent and perhaps even graduated high school. If that is true, given that you made five elementary school-level linguistic errors in a single sentence, I would argue that the existing standards are probably already so low that the short-term effects of this change have no impact.
Allow me to explain: I believe that in your reply, you were trying to ask: "Didn't Oregon make math and English not mandatory in schools to help 'students of color?'" To that end, please allow a poor immigrant to whom English is a third language to educate you.
First and foremost, notice my use of "make" to your use of "made." You started your sentence with "didn't," a past tense auxiliary verb, and followed it with a past participle. Auxiliary verbs, also known as "helping verbs," are always followed by a main verb in its infinitive form, otherwise known as a basic verb, always in the present tense. Fun fact: describing a singular action that has already happened using a singular past tense verb without any additional context forms what is known as a "simple past tense" sentence. Past participles such as "made" are only used in what are known as "perfect tense" sentences.
Furthermore, past participles are effectively used as adjectives despite technically being verbs. "Make" is a transitive verb denoting an action, whereas "made" describes an action. There were no proper verbs in the original sentence since auxiliary verbs imply a tense rather than action, and past participles function as adjectives. The lack of a proper verb renders it essentially meaningless. You made a second error by not capitalizing "English," a proper noun. Your subsequent two errors are using "to be," not only a redundant adjective given the use of "make," but also an adjective used to describe something that will happen in the future. Using a future tense adjective to describe something that has already transpired does not make sense. Lastly, in American English, punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks.
@@XDSDDLord Huh, what an enormous amount of text just to defend the idea of giving lower standards to minorities instead of actually solving the problem, also, yes, it is racist to lower your standards based on someone's race
In the whole USA the laws are Medival.
In comparison to the south we got victorian laws. Not good but better
He performed in Copenhagen? Weird.
He was famous all over Europe in his days. He's still fairly well known amongst Europeans who grew up around the '60s
0:54
🎹
🎹🎶
Ah the 60s. You couldn't get away singing songs like that
Reason?
We d id. I n the 50’s, 60’s , 70’s
Bo Burnham does
Few did, which is what makes him so special. Sad how things have turned around again.
Some things just stay relevant (unfortunately)
Donald Trump's theme song.
O Khayyam maybe he knew?.
he's a new yorker, dummy. queens.
Paul Blart Mall Cart too bad?
@Bessie D. I would have said that the white sheets he comes in contact with are the ones worn by various Arab rulers, but that one was good, too.
No, Bidens
Young tall Garrison Keillor in the audience front row at the end.
1: 52 mark
He never did a funny song about Israelites.
Hmm
TOM LEHRER is an extremely Talented and Entertaining COMMIE...
We have all the best tunes ;-)
Do not think Tom Lehrer a Communist, but more of a comedic satirist. Hebisb probably more left wing than right, which is his right under a democratic system.
Vinny, man... doesn't it worry you that you assume people who condemn racism can't be on your side ideologically?
Maybe, just maybe, there's something wrong with your ideology if that's the case...
Making fun of racism = communism
@@helensearle1896 we do. And they must be giants agrees.
Modern republicanism
Nope. It was the democrats then, still is now
You keep telling yourself that@@PunkRockZombie205
This but unironically
Silly and hateful.
A hateful ridiculing of racists, who so richly deserve it.
Because slavery wasn't hateful ?
@@unsuisseegare1291 because denigrating an entire region for a cultural practice that has existed everywhere in the world and still exists in some places is obnoxious. No slavery in the South since 1865. Let’s hear a song about the slave traders that founded all those IvyLeague schools . That would be hilarious doncha think? Or a little ditty about the current slave owners that exist today.
Oh, my! Your inability to understand what you've seen/heard is amusing, although a bit sad.What's being ridiculed in the song isn't 'an entire region', for a cultural practice that has existed everywhere in the world and still exists in some places or for any other reason. It's making sport of those people who (at the time the song was written & performed, and to this very day) express an apparent longing to return to that time, place and way of life. 🙂 @@pammienakh
@@bobs.2008 So it’s directed at all the people in the world that prefer slavery or made money off of slavery and wish to continue doing so? Rethink it.
1:45