I call "Off The Charts".
I'm not enjoying it so far, but, okay.
I got my results back today and my sperm is off the charts.
Oh! Yay, yay, yay!
Okay, see? Maybe we're not as old as we thought we were.
I'm still clinging on by my fingertips.
Well, the only thing I'm clinging onto
is the edge of the charts.
Really?
But don't take my word for it, here.
Oh, this very official medical document
that just weirdly happened to be on your nightstand?
Yep.
Mobility off the charts, consistency off the charts.
Oh! Cytoplasmic droplets. Cytoplasmic droplets.
Cytoplasmic droplets.
Two? Two doesn't seem off the charts.
Tail length, OTC.
"Tail length"? Like that's the sexy part of your sperm,
the tail length? Did I over-play the tail length? Did I over-play the tail length?
Did I over-play the tail length?
Look, is this going to be something that you just,
For more infomation >> I'm Sorry - Off The Charts | truTV - Duration: 1:01.-------------------------------------------
President Trump Breaking New Today 8/31/17 , Kellyanne Conway on Harvey Relief , North Korea News - Duration: 10:54.
-------------------------------------------
$42 water gouging Harvey victims? - Duration: 0:48.
For more infomation >> $42 water gouging Harvey victims? - Duration: 0:48. -------------------------------------------
50.000 ABONE ÖZEL VİDEO! - Duration: 4:11.
For more infomation >> 50.000 ABONE ÖZEL VİDEO! - Duration: 4:11. -------------------------------------------
Craig Herrera's Weather Forecast (Aug. 31) - Duration: 2:13.
For more infomation >> Craig Herrera's Weather Forecast (Aug. 31) - Duration: 2:13. -------------------------------------------
Free Thoughts, Ep. 199: Close America's Overseas Bases (with John Glaser) - Duration: 50:34.
Aaron Powell: Welcome to Free Thoughts.
I'm Aaron Powell.
Trevor Burrus: And I'm Trevor Burrus.
Aaron Powell: Joining us today is John Glaser.
He's the Associate Director of Foreign Policy Studies here at the Cato Institute.
Welcome to Free Thoughts, John.
John Glaser: Thanks.
Aaron Powell: What is America's "forward-deployed military posture?"
John Glaser: So that's a fancy Pentagon way of saying that we have a lot of overseas military
bases.
We have about 800 of them, of varying sizes, [00:00:30] in about 70 countries abroad.
It's a massive presence.
Some of these bases have people for years, and years, and years, permanently stationed
there with their families.
They build little cities inside these military bases to sustain life.
Others are really small, with only a few troops.
Just to get a sense of the size of it, it has roughly 250,000 [00:01:00] troops at all
times, all around the world.
In comparison, Russia, our geopolitical competitor, has only about nine overseas bases.
China has just one, in Djibouti.
It's a uniquely American preoccupation, this forward deployed presence.
Trevor Burrus: Has that number, 800, changed much in the last 20 years or so?
John Glaser: Yeah.
Trevor Burrus: Or maybe 50 years?
John Glaser: Sure.
[00:01:30] Since the Cold War, the number of troops deployed abroad has definitely gone
down.
The number of bases has gone down as well, but they went back up with regard to the Middle
East.
We took a lot of troops and bases out of Europe at the end of the Cold War, and reduced some
bases that we had in Asia.
Our presence and activity in the Middle East increased.
Since the end of the Cold War, we've [00:02:00] actually increased our presence there.
Aaron Powell: Where are these?
You said they're in 70 countries, and we have more in the Middle East than we used to; but
in general, where are these located?
Are they highly concentrated in specific parts of the world?
Or, are we pretty much covering everything?
John Glaser: They're highly concentrated, especially the major ones with lots of troops
in them, in Europe, the Middle East, and North-east Asia; so Japan and South Korea have very large
numbers of US troops.
Germany has a lot of US troops.
We have them scattered throughout the rest [00:02:30] of Europe as well.
Then, in the Middle East, we have roughly 50,000 troops.
We have major, 13 to 14,000 in Kuwait.
We have 7,000 roughly rotating in and out of Iraq right now.
We have, of course, the major presence still in Afghanistan.
We're still fighting a war there.
Major air bases in Qatar, and about 6 or 7,000 troops permanently stationed in the Navy's
Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, which is right in the [00:03:00] Persian Gulf.
Trevor Burrus: Now, you argue that we shouldn't have as many ... I mean, we could cut that
in half and we would still have substantially more.
We could have 400 bases and we still would have substantially more than any other country.
That would definitely be a significant change in US Foreign Policy if we were not so, as
we say, 'forward deployed' out there.
Is it asking too much, first of all, to not be able to put our force abroad at any sort
of ... five minutes from [00:03:30] being able to bomb Iran.
That's the way we think about American Foreign Policy.
Stepping back from that is really rethinking the entirety of American Foreign Policy.
John Glaser: Yeah.
I will reveal my own bias here.
I think yes, our foreign policy needs a fundamental re-think.
We shouldn't be playing the global policeman.
I think the purpose of American foreign policy ought to be what it used to be, which is essentially
protecting the physical security of the United States territory and it's citizens.
[00:04:00] Managing local disputes in remote regions of the world that don't have all that
much impact for our security or our economic interest, I don't think is in our interest.
I don't think that makes sense for us.
Part of the problem with having lots of bases in lots of different countries around the
world is that it tends to suck us into conflicts that we otherwise might not be engaged in.
For example, [00:04:30] after the Second World War in 1945, we established what was supposed
to be a temporary presence in South Korea.
We were supposed to work with the Russians to develop some kind of situation in which
the Korean Peninsula could operate on it's own, and have it's own government.
In 1947, 48, and 49, three successive years, the top military strategists in the Truman
Administration recommended full withdrawal.
[00:05:00] They did so because they said Korea is of little strategic importance to us.
The fact is that we had a presence there, and then when the North Koreans invaded in
1950, it obligated the United States to continue to be involved.
This is the case with our current commitments.
For example, we have bases in the Philippines that ... and Japan.
Japan and the Philippines both have maritime and territorial disputes with China.
If it's the case that they end up getting into some kind [00:05:30] of dispute, our
forces act as a trip wire.
They obligate the United States, make it politically costly for us not to get involved in optional
elective conflicts.
I think that's one of the major problems with it.
Aaron Powell: But doesn't this get to the ... The argument in part for these bases is
precisely that that's the sort of stuff we should be doing, that if we ... We don't want
the North Koreans taking over the Korean Peninsula.
We don't want China destroying Japan.
If we've got these bases there, [00:06:00] be they act as a deterrent in the first place,
and if they don't, they make us more capable and make those countries more capable of defending
themselves.
John Glaser: Indeed.
As we deter adversaries and reassure allies, this has the effect of, according to advocates
of forward deployment, pacifying the international systems.
Sometimes it's called the American pacifier.
We basically prevent spirals of conflict happening around the world, because this major hegemonic
power has troops everywhere.
[00:06:30] That's an argument; but I think you have to consider the other plausible,
causal explanations for the dramatic decline in international conflict and violence over
the past 70 years.
It is true that our forward presence was established after World War II.
It's also true that since then, there's a correlation between the establishment of those
bases and the decline of overall interstate violence.
But, there's other [00:07:00] factors as well.
For example, the fact that most great powers and some not-so-great powers have nuclear
weapons.
This creates a situation of mutually assured destruction, and it makes people really not
want to go to war because that means the destruction of your society.
Some people, that's called the 'Nuclear Peace Theory.'
Very honorable and respected theorists like Kenneth Waltz in the international relations
field have proffered that one.
Some people look at the Nuclear Peace Theory and say, "Well, sure, but that's probably
[00:07:30] redundant.
The conventional power that modern militaries have, as we saw in World War I and World War
II are so destructive.
They can destroy empires.
They can kill people almost as effectively as nuclear weapons, and so that acts as enough
of a deterrent: the modern capacity of industrialized militaries is too great."
Then, some people look at economic interdependence, which of course, has proliferated in the [00:08:00]
post-war era.
If you trade with someone and you have economic interdependence, you're much less likely to
go to war with them.
Some other people still look further.
John Mueller, for example; who you guys know, he's a political scientist out of Ohio State
University.
He has senior fellow here at Cato.
He's one of the foremost proponents that there have been dramatic normative shifts in the
way most civilized people see war in this era.
[00:08:30] It's something if you go back to the World War I era, you can hear people in
Germany and even our own leaders like Teddy Roosevelt at the time, talking about war as
something to aspire to.
It was a cleansing national experience that made people strong and glorious, and masculine.
That's different from today.
Even the war mongers among us tend to talk about war as something of a last resort.
Then of course, there's 'Democratic Peace Theory.'
There are more [00:09:00] democracies these days.
Democracies for some reason or another, tend not to go to war with each other.
You have all of these different trends, all of these different trend lines of ... that
have various support in the academic community.
They all point in the direction of less war and less violence.
Under those conditions, I think it's worth scrutinizing the American pacifier theory.
Aaron Powell: We turn to history, briefly.
We're talking a good [00:09:30] prompt for this conversation today is a paper you recently
published with Cato, which we'll put a link to in the show notes, about these overseas
bases.
You have a section on the how the motivations for having them have changed over time.
Can you tell us a bit about that [inaudible 00:09:47] ... long history of putting troops
in places that aren't your own territory?
John Glaser: Sure.
I don't know how much of the long history I can go into detail about, but the things
that I talk about in the-
Trevor Burrus: Actually, I'm going to interject with the first ... Before World War II, [00:10:00]
we did have the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.
When was the first sort of forward deployment?
We had Guam.
We had Philippines.
Starting in the early 20th century, we did have troops abroad, correct?
John Glaser: Yeah.
1898, after the Spanish-American War, we did adopt some pretty major overseas bases that
also ended up ... We sort of annexed territory.
We still own Guam, for example, and lots of other pieces of territory.
It's hard [00:10:30] to say when our first overseas military base.
Sometimes in the mid-1800s and actually early 1800s, we had some outposts in China to try
to facilitate trade between the United States and China.
I wouldn't really count that as a full military base in the sense that we're currently talking
about.
The 1898 style discussion, some people sometimes call that the 'saltwater fallacy,' because
we were still an expanding continent [00:11:00] here in the contiguous United States.
We had all sorts of military bases out West.
When it got past the salt water, people talk about that being more imperial inclinations.
With regard to the history, overseas military bases are not all that new.
You had Athens and Sparta building military bases throughout Greece.
You had Rome building military bases from Britannia all the way to [00:11:30] the other
end of the Mediterranean.
Empires of old used to build military bases to colonize distant lands with their own people.
They used to build them for mercantilist reasons, to gain economic advantage over their other
competitors.
It was only in the really the start of the Cold War, the end of World War [00:12:00]
II, that overseas bases started to develop this current justification.
Which is to, number one, deter adversaries.
Number two, reassure allies.
Number three, make it really easy for us to get places quickly if we decide we want to
go to war.
Aaron Powell: If we take the arguments, we accept the arguments of people who think that
there should be overseas bases, those arguments would seem to apply to other countries as
well.
[00:12:30] Then, why is that ... The United States has a bigger military than Russia,
and a bigger military than China; but the difference in the number of bases we have
versus the number of bases they have can't be explained just by the ratios there.
If these bases are valuable, why don't other countries have so many?
Why are they all sitting in the single digits?
John Glaser: The United States is unique in it's definition of it's national interests.
We have truly expansive definition of what our national interests are, what our [00:13:00]
global responsibilities are.
China doesn't have, within it's own national security strategy, what kind of military intervention
they would engage in if there's a humanitarian conflict in Latin America, or something.
No other country has such an expansive definition of it's national interests as the United States
does.
The other thing that's important in that context is that the United States is safer than most
other great [00:13:30] powers.
We have weak and pliant neighbors to our North and South.
We have vast oceans to our East and West, which act as a defensive barrier to most conventional
kinds of threats.
We spend ... roughly 38% of the global military spending is our own.
We could cut our military spending in half and still outspend China right now.
We have a nuclear deterrent, which prevents anyone from attacking our own territories.
This [00:14:00] situation puts us in a really secure place.
When you're really secure, unfortunately, and you're the unipolar power, the hegemony
in the world, you start to think about what you can do elsewhere as opposed to just protecting
your own borders.
Trevor Burrus: Don't you think that other ... You said we have our ... We conceptualize
our interests very broadly, but don't you think that other countries also do that to
us?
That they expect us to do the right thing, and that we're the benevolent hegemony, and
that that's actually the [00:14:30] entire point?
That it's not that big a deal that we're in Germany because we are generally a good country
that ... What's [inaudible 00:14:39], we will do the right thing after we've exhausted all
other options.
People know that about us, but I think that Germany probably wants us there.
Aaron Powell: They're not scared, at least, that we're going to up and decide to take
them over.
Trevor Burrus: Yeah.
No one's afraid of that.
No one's thinking that we're Rome and we're trying to take over the whole world.
Maybe in some of these places like Bahrain or a place where we [00:15:00] have ... We
might [engineer 00:15:02] conflict and put our people in danger, because there are people
there who want to get them.
That's a totally different analysis than say, Germany, which is probably creating good relations
between America and Germany, and allowing us to do what they're asking us to do; which
is to be the benevolent hegemony.
Which, I think we've done a pretty good job of that.
John Glaser: Yeah.
So first of all, it's totally true that Germany is not worried about the United States taking
over Germany.
That's not our M-O.
But if you're talking about the perception of [00:15:30] our military posture abroad,
you also have to take into account people that aren't benefiting off American largess,
that aren't having their defense subsidized by the United States and our presence there.
For example, one of the most dangerous points in the entirety of the Cold War, was of course,
the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Only a matter of months prior to that crisis, the Kennedy Administration put missiles, Jupiter
missiles, [00:16:00] in Turkey, which bordered the Soviet Union.
Of course, Moscow perceived this as deeply threatening.
The leadership at the time in Russia, in the Soviet Union discussed in papers that have
since been declassified that, 'We feel we're being surrounded by military bases from the
United States, and so we're going to give them a taste of their own medicine and put
one in Cuba.'
That precipitated literally the closest we've come to nuclear war, [00:16:30] so that was
obviously not a good thing.
That translates to today.
For example, the expansion of NATO, and the establishment of US military bases further
and further East towards Russia, and even up to the Russian border in some cases, is
the source of profound and lingering anxiety and resentment in Russia.
They don't like the perception that they're being sort of encircled.
You can also compare this in [00:17:00] Asia.
The United States has almost roughly 50,000 troops in Japan, right at the end of the Japanese
archipelago, which is sort of pointed like a dagger at the center of China.
We have about 30,000 troops in Korea, which of course, is very close to China.
We guarantee the security of the Philippines.
We have 60% of our naval presence in the Asia Pacific region.
[00:17:30] This is perceived in China as deeply threatening.
Every country and it's allies tends to view themselves as benevolent and wonderful, and
non-threatening.
The problem is when you get into other people's heads, they see it much differently.
Just to conclude this part, one of the foremost grievances cited for the 9/11 attacks was
the US military presence in Saudi Arabia.
It was something that Al Qaeda cited [00:18:00] in order to rally Muslim support against the
United States.
It was one of the foremost reasons and justifications that they used to attack us.
Our presence abroad can create all kinds of resentment.
That's not just in countries in the Middle East.
Just a year or so ago, there was a protest of 65,000 Okinawans in Japan in opposition
to the US military base presence there.
This can happen [00:18:30] all over the world, even among allies.
Trevor Burrus: I want to, on the 9/11 point, do you believe it is the case that, but for
American military bases, the ones cited in the Al Qaeda letter, in Saudi Arabia in particular,
I believe, but for those, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
John Glaser: Well, there was a number of grievances that Al Qaeda-
Trevor Burrus: Well, we still would have been attacked.
I guess to clarify my question, too, if we just flew [inaudible 00:18:58] from Germany
[00:19:00] and attacked them, how much is the bases, and how much is it the military
actions?
If we were bombing places, but flying from Germany, or we were still treating the ... muslim
[inaudible 00:19:12].
That seems like a bigger thing than just the presence of a base that we're discussing right
now.
John Glaser: That's true.
In general, of course, lots of Muslims, particularly the extremist ones, oppose aggressive military
action in the Middle East.
The presence of US military forces [00:19:30] inside Saudi Arabia, which is the site of
the two holiest places in Islam, was the source of particular concern to very religious Muslims
because they felt that the Saudi government was inviting infidels and crusaders to the
holiest place in Islam.
That was the source of a particular and unique religious concern.
It's also the case that Robert Pape, one of the foremost [00:20:00] scholars on terrorism,
has said his studies that foreign occupation is the foremost determinative of terrorism,
a motivator for terrorism.
If you can go back in history, for example, when we had our massive military presence
in Lebanon in the 1980s.
In 1983, that's when Hezbollah committed an attack that killed something like 241 ... I
might get that number wrong ... US service personnel.
[00:20:30] In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked out of Yemen.
These foreign military bases are symbols of American power in the region.
All the other stuff, whether it's Israel/Palestine, the sanctions regime on Iraq, which ended
up killing lots of people, all kinds of other more tangible elements of US influence in
the region, the bases [00:21:00] themselves ... as I say, operate as a kind of symbol
of American power that can generate a lot of resentment.
Aaron Powell: Okay, but I can ... putting on my rah-rah war hat for a moment.
Trevor Burrus: It doesn't fit you very well.
Aaron Powell: No.
Trevor Burrus: It's been in the closet for a long time.
Aaron Powell: Yeah.
I guess, so what?
Russia, they're the bad guys; a powerful military run by a mad man.
China is the bad [00:21:30] guys.
The Islamic extremists are the bad guys.
Yeah, having super powerful good guys next to them makes them uncomfortable, and they
don't like it, and it makes them resent that we're more powerful than they are.
So what?
Why should that factor in?
Why should we just give in to the psychological pain of the bad guys and not protect our interests?
Trevor Burrus: Yeah, if we hadn't done Hitler with a bunch of military bases and it made
Hitler uncomfortable, you'd be like, "That's the point."
John Glaser: [00:22:00] It depends on what kind of results you want.
If you believe in the power of American deterrents, and that everywhere we put bases, it's going
to keep bad guys in check, then that's one reason to further the argument that you just
made.
The problem is that there are reactions to our overseas military presence.
It's what's called counter-balancing in the IR literature.
[00:22:30] For example, it's hard to find someone in Moscow or in the Kremlin that describes
the motivations for their military actions in Georgia and Ukraine in ways that doesn't
cite NATO expansion.
Lots of analysts point to Chinese aggressive and assertive actions in the South China Sea
as being motivated by a fear that the United States in the largest [00:23:00] naval presence
there.
Therefore, that's where they get all their oil, through the straights of Malacca coming
through the Persian Gulf, in the Strait of Malacca ... and we could possibly interdict
Chinese shipments.
When you make foreign powers nervous unnecessarily, you tend to get unintended consequences that
result from that.
Usually those aren't too pretty.
Now, the problem is that people see these things very differently.
People that advocate [00:23:30] for a foreign deployed presence, they don't like to admit
that Russia has taken aggressive actions in Eastern Europe as a result of the expansion
of our military presence.
Instead, they say, "Well, that's proof that we don't have enough of a military presence
there," which is an argument for always having military bases everywhere, forever.
I think that gets so far from what the purpose of American foreign policy should be that
it creates all kinds of problems.
There's costs problems, which I [00:24:00] think we can talk about a little bit.
More to the point, if you are like me, and I again, be clear about my biases here, I
think the United States government should be limited in it's powers and it's role in
domestic societies should be somewhat limited, especially compared with the role that it's
currently conceived as.
I think that translates as well to the foreign realm.
I think it ought to be the role of the American foreign policy, the purpose in American foreign
[00:24:30] policy, to protect the United States and managing global affairs, and trying to
prevent conflict in various regions, et cetera, getting ourselves drawn into conflicts, incentivizing
counter balancing, all these other negative unintended consequences, that doesn't meld
with my conception of what US foreign policy ought to be about.
Aaron Powell: The world is a relatively safe place, compared to [00:25:00] where it's been.
We don't have a lot of wars between nations.
Living in a dangerous world, even if we're ... across oceans from it, is still worse
than living in a safe world.
Wouldn't us focusing only on our own interests narrowly defined and pulling back, make the
world in general a more dangerous place?
Because then you wouldn't have [00:25:30] the US protecting countries or deterring countries,
even if there are these occasional push-backs and aggression that's provoked by it.
Which would then, just aside from being bad for the world, would ultimately be bad for
America.
John Glaser: Well, this gets back to the American pacifier thesis.
If you believe that the world is a safer place these days because America has scores of military
bases in scores of countries, then that's a really powerful argument.
[00:26:00] I think there are solid reasons to think that the world is a safer place these
days for reasons other than American pacifier.
Aaron Powell: But I guess the question is how does the cost benefit, kind of.
You could say you've got ... There's the American pacifier theory, and then there's the other
theories that you're more inclined to endorse; but given the state of the world right now
and how relatively good it is compared to where it could be and where it's been, it's
a profound risk to test those theories.
We can't test them on [00:26:30] the small scale and say, "Oh, it turns out to be ... maybe
the American pacifier theory is a little bit better than I thought," Or, "Maybe these other
ones aren't quite as right," and then roll it back.
Are the current costs that we are incurring at the moment, both in terms of just how expensive
it is and the danger that it puts American people, American troops in, high enough to
warrant that risk of testing John's theory about global stability?
John Glaser: Yes, because I don't think it's actually [00:27:00] that much of a risk.
It might help to narrow this down to a specific context, as opposed to thinking about the
entire world.
If you can remember it in the 2016 campaign, one of the main things Donald Trump kept saying
was that China, it's China's responsibility to pressure North Korea to behave better and
stop it's nuclear development, and missile development, et cetera.
One of the main reasons that China continues to [00:27:30] be a patron of North Korea is
that one of the main things that China fears is a unified Korean Peninsula under the American
military umbrella with US troops there.
If you go back in the study of international relations, especially ... This is very popular
in the great game era, and the European politics in the 1800s, buffer states are really important.
Buffer states make [00:28:00] states feel secure from their enemies.
If there's a piece of territory there, it's a measure of protection.
If China's mostly concerned about a unified Korean Peninsula with the American military
forces there, because it doesn't want US military forces on it's border, one thing that we could
do in terms of negotiating settlement to the North Korean issue, or leveraging China to
get more involved [00:28:30] in a constructive way on Pyongyang, we could offer a change
to the US and South Korean alliance, and perhaps pulling away from our military presence there.
That's a situation in which we could reach a more peaceful situation, some kind of peace
agreement, some kind of grand bargain between the United States, North Korea, South Korea,
and China; but it's being held back because China's main hangup is that US forces are
in [00:29:00] the region.
That's just one example.
There are others, though.
We don't need forward deployed military bases to keep us safe, and we don't need them to
make the world more peaceful.
Trevor Burrus: Kind of dovetailing on Aaron's question a little bit.
I was reading your paper, trying to be a neocon-ish person as I read it.
I could see the lines that they thought were laughable.
[00:29:30] One of your lines is, 'The rise in expansionist European power bent on a continental
domination is nowhere on the horizon.'
Isn't that what they would have said in say, 1930?
Isn't that one of these famous last words things that when we're talking about Europe
pulling out Germany, for example, as I said.
I know we can get later you think some bases are worse than others, and maybe Germany's
not top of your list; but if you're totally against the forward deployment, then we're
talking about getting out of [00:30:00] Germany, too.
I think history has shown that it's generally a bad idea to let European powers grow their
militaries and figure out and fight a war that is total destruction.
We shouldn't just be blindly saying, "This is not a concern.
We'll get out of there."
John Glaser: Yeah, I don't think today is comparable to the era in the lead-up to World
War I or in the era in the lead-up to World War II.
Europe is one of the most stable and peaceful [00:30:30] continents in the world.
It's a really safe and rich bit of territory.
Since World War II, European countries have developed all kinds of institutional elements
of cooperation, economic integration.
They have close political and diplomatic overlaps, in terms of how they perceive their interests.
It really is a demonstration of how things can become pacified [00:31:00] in a political
and cultural way after the devastation of the cataclysms of the first and second World
War.
I don't think there's really anyone that I'm aware of in the literature who points out
that Germany is a risk of a growing power that's going to gobble up it's neighbors and
start to gain a hegemonic influence on the European continent.
I think today, people would more likely to be pointing to Russia as a concern, as a power
[00:31:30] that wants to expand and gobble up other countries.
The problem with that is that their GDP is about 1.3 trillion, which is roughly like
Spain's.
The main thing that you need to build up military power is economic power.
Russia just doesn't have it.
They're a declining power in a lot of ways.
They have an aging population.
They have all kinds of internal problems that prevent them from being able to project power
in distant regions.
Their actions in Georgia, [00:32:00] Ukraine, and Syria lately, have actually bogged them
down in problematic conflicts that they don't quite see a way out of.
They have nuclear weapons, and that protects them, but they don't really have the power
right now to start gobbling up and become a European hegemony.
The main thing you have to look at, if you're concerned about a rising hegemony is the nature
of the regime, the balance of power, ... because the Western Europe [00:32:30] checks Russia's
power because they're more powerful and richer ... and the economic power and military power
of the states in question.
I think if you look at that, it's pretty clear that we don't need to have a permanent presence
there to prevent that kind of contingency.
It's like we had, in the past, basically we served as a balancer of last resort.
When other powers, European powers in particular, found that they couldn't manage a [00:33:00]
rogue nation on their own, then we would come in and balance.
That was a very wise and strategic and cost-efficient way to manage the balance of power.
Instead, now the dominant theory is we have to always be there to prevent this from ever
happening again.
If it happens, we'll have plenty of lead time.
I think we can easily deploy quickly, if we think we need to.
Trevor Burrus: If you were making the case [00:33:30] for, to a person who did not accept
... I think a pretty mainstream foreign policy view right now, even amongst ... well, some
conservatives.
They don't accept the fullness of your critique of American involvement abroad, but they think
we've done too.
They weren't a fan of Iraq, maybe they think we should get out of Afghanistan.
So when Trump said we've been doing too much abroad, that resonated with them.
But then to say, "Okay, therefore we should take every military base away," is like, 'Okay,
that's too strong.'
[00:34:00] We're going for a compromise position, and when you do this in your paper, you talk
about other technologies.
Maybe we do need to get there in three days, but we have aircraft carriers, we have planes
that can fly from Missouri to the Middle East and back.
If you were making the case for dramatically lessening how many bases we have and still
being able to accomplish the military objectives that a lot of people think that we should
have [00:34:30] the capabilities, even if we shouldn't use it as much, how would you
make that case for say, 400 bases rather than 800?
Which ones would you first say we got to get out of because they're not worth it?
What technologies can still let us be somewhat of a military hegemony, but without making
other people mad, without putting our troops in danger?
How would you rank the bases?
How would you adjust our military capability to still behave in the world?
John Glaser: We just talked about Europe.
I think Europe is one of the most stable, peaceful, and [00:35:00] rich places in the
world.
That makes it a very good candidate to pull US military bases out of.
We see eye-to-eye with most Europeans on how things ought to be on domestic liberal reforms,
and foreign policy, and stuff like that.
They're really rich, and powerful, and can defend themselves.
They can uphold the role that the United States now upholds in the region, if we were to leave.
That's a good test case.
[00:35:30] There are less stable areas.
I talked about the Korean Peninsula, for example, and of course, the Middle East.
I think reducing overall our military bases and maintaining a few, like the major ones
that we have in say, Japan, would allow us rapid contingency response to deal with any
operational contingency that might come our way.
The other important thing is what you were saying [00:36:00] is that our travel ... The
technology that we have these days, to travel really quickly, and bomb from great distances,
really allow us to engage in any type of mission that we think is necessary.
The only thing that really prevents rapid deployment of massive mobilization of military
forces, withdrawing from all bases would make that quite difficult.
The [00:36:30] argument there I would make is that it's not necessarily a bad thing to
rob the executive branch of the ability to quickly intervene in any conflict in which
they think they ought to intervene; and counter to constitutional ideas about checks and balances,
and giving the executive branch more options to deploy more quickly is kind of ... does
violence, so to speak, to constitutional principles.
Aaron Powell: [00:37:00] You've argued a few times that we are ... one of the effects that
our bases have is subsidizing the defense of other nations, because they don't have
to then pour their own money into defending themselves.
Do we know how much nations would react to us taking away those subsidies?
Can we just assume that if we pulled our bases out of Europe, the Europeans would build up
their militaries an equal amount, or the South Koreans [00:37:30] would?
John Glaser: It's hard to say.
I think you have to look at discrete examples.
Certainly it's the case, I think, that Eastern European countries, ones that are really close
to the Russian border, would start to boost military spending.
The Baltics already spend more as a percentage of their economy than a lot of Western European
countries do.
It's hard to say whether or not places like Germany, France, Britain, would boost military
spending if they didn't [00:38:00] have American protection.
One of the main reasons is because they don't face any threats.
In the United States, it's become a bit of a pathology to overspend on military assets.
We need more weapons, more equipment, more troops, more bases, et cetera, because we
have this expansive definition of our national interests.
If the Europeans don't spend a lot on their military, it might be because [00:38:30] we
subsidize their defense, or it might be because they don't really face any threats.
Who's going to invade Germany right now?
Who is the candidate that's going to bomb Berlin?
It's not really in the cards in the policy-relevant future.
They might inch up slightly, but it's not a guarantee that they would boost spending.
Aaron Powell: How does terrorism factor into this, because ... so ISIS has threatened to
invade Italy; but were there prophecies, right?
Berlin, [00:39:00] Germany has been attacked.
I don't know Berlin specifically has been attacked, but does that change the equation?
Do we need, because there's these ... there are threats in a way that there weren't from
just troops marching across a border?
John Glaser: Permanent peacetime overseas military bases are just about the worst tool
imaginable to prevent some guy driving into a crowd of people in East France.
The operations [00:39:30] and attacks that ISIS and other similar groups have taken in
Europe in recent years are mostly lone wolf attacks.
Sometimes there's some tenuous connection to some base in the Middle East that was directed
from the official group; but mostly, these are really low level violence attacks.
They kill a few people and it's very tragic, but there's literally no way to conceive of
our permanent overseas military presence as preventing that [00:40:00] or doing anything
to mitigate it, or responding to it.
These are just low level attacks.
Of course, the question of terrorism at a bird's eye view, it should be noted as has
been noted on this podcast in previous episodes, it's a small threat that we face from terrorism.
Every year since 9/11, I think the number of deaths in the United States from terrorism
is about 6.
Every year since 9/11, the average number of deaths from being struck by lightening
is roughly [00:40:30] 50.
This is a manageable threat.
It's not a war to be won, it's a problem to be managed.
Trevor Burrus: But if, on the flip side as opposed to trying to stop people driving trucks
through crowds, which I agree is probably impossible unless you want to live in a police
state; but if we want to hit terrorists in a strategic fashion, which whether it's through
drones, or bringing in special forces, and landing them, and seeing a threat.
Maybe we see that they have nuclear material or something like this, [00:41:00] it seems
that we would want to be flying out of bases in Italy, bases in Germany, bases in Qatar.
That would be better.
John Glaser: The Rand Corporation did a study on this.
What they concluded is that the time benefit of doing a bombing mission from say, Germany
into the Middle East, is so neg liable as to not very much be worth it.
It shouldn't be the justification that our bases in Europe need to be there so that we
can quickly [00:41:30] bomb the Middle East, because the time benefit is just so negligible.
For example, during the first Gulf War in 1991, we flew bombing missions from Louisiana,
in round trip missions, that were refueled in the air in under 30 hours.
We can so quickly bomb targets in the Middle East, really at a whim, that the foreign military
bases that [00:42:00] enable those logistically, enable those missions often times right now,
are just not necessary to complete the mission.
Trevor Burrus: I can picture someone with military experience listening to this and
thinking that this ... In your paper, you compare five days of response versus seven
days, if we were coming from mainland United States, or you said that Guam and Diego Garcia.
Guam is a territory, so we don't have destabilization concerns; so you're okay with Guam, and you're
okay with Diego Garcia ... which is a British territory.
[00:42:30] If you have a two day difference between flying from Louisiana to the Middle
East, and what's the big deal?
I could see in the military strategy being like, "Who does this guy think he is?
Two days is an eternity in military speed.
Two days is where ... Gettysburg day one to Gettysburg day three."
John Glaser: Yeah, so it's important to make the distinction here.
The couple of days difference is referring to a brigade combat team deploying to a foreign
region.
That [00:43:00] amounts to roughly 5,000 troops, lost of heavy equipment and vehicles, et cetera.
That takes a little bit longer, but not long enough to prevent us from being able to head
off some kind of major military conflict between militaries.
The bombing missions don't take a couple of extra days.
Bombing missions take an extra hour, roughly; maybe a couple hours.
We can easily field ... the time difference is negligible for bombing missions.
If [00:43:30] you want to get really technical, we have 11 or 12 aircraft carriers, which
can be all over the world and all over the oceans, and we can fly bombing missions from
them as well.
Trevor Burrus: Would you make a trade-off if you were trying to negotiate a bill, and
you were saying, "Okay, let's take 400 bases away.
We still have 400, and let's build three more aircraft carriers."
Would that be a trade-off you'd be willing to make, in the sense of saying that, "Okay,
I'll agree we need strike capability, but here are the 400 [00:44:00] bases that are
costing the most in terms of our safety, anger towards the United States."
John Glaser: Yeah.
Trevor Burrus: "I'll give you three aircraft carriers."
John Glaser: I'm a man of compromise.
I'm happy with that trade.
I don't think we need the extra aircraft carriers.
Trevor Burrus: "And a destroyer to be named later in draft- [crosstalk 00:44:13]."
John Glaser: Yeah, name the destroy after me.
I'll be really happy to make that trade.
I don't think ... We have more aircraft carriers than anyone else in the world.
A lot more.
We can put them in places all over the earth's [00:44:30] oceans to easily deploy.
We don't need the extra, but if that's the compromise I'm faced with, I'm kind of happy
to do that.
One thing about telling this military people, I got the idea for keeping bases in just Guam
and Diego Garcia from a friend of mine in the military.
I think the hawks that really insist that we must maintain a global military presence
at all [00:45:00] times are frequently not from the military.
For bureaucratic interests, military officials tend to insist that we don't shutdown bases.
Military people in general, people that serve in the military, I don't think are necessarily
by definition, insistent on the American pacifier thesis.
Aaron Powell: Are there any, or how many bases are there I guess that even if all of these
arguments for why we should have [00:45:30] the US military spread all over the place
are true, or just egregious examples of this base doesn't accomplish anything.
Trevor Burrus: We give you a big red pin and a list of all the bases and American assets,
and you say, "Okay John, cross 'em off."
John Glaser: What I'll say is that there's a lot of tiny bases in strategically insignificant
places that we could just easily do away with.
These would be the first to go.
There's a lot of bases that we have in a couple dozen, [00:46:00] or just over a dozen African
countries.
They're really small.
They don't have that many personnel there.
They're often hubs to train militaries in those countries.
We don't need those.
They don't make us safer.
They don't make Africa safer.
We have bases in Central and South America.
Those aren't needed.
If you talk about getting places quickly, certainly we can deploy from bases in the
United States to anywhere within our own hemisphere much quicker than [00:46:30] we can from distances
far, far, far and away.
In the Americas and in Africa, I think those would be the first to go.
Least significant.
Trevor Burrus: Going forward, a lot of people criticize libertarian foreign policy a lot.
We get it from both the left and the right.
We come in here, we say, "No more foreign ... forward deployment of the massive scale,
at least."
You made some very good points, but how do we start trying to convince people that this
is generally a good idea [00:47:00] and we can draw it down.
We don't have to go all the way to our principled level, but draw it down.
What sort of impediments do you see coming in that makes that difficult?
Other than the obvious disagreement with you.
John Glaser: I worry about how lengthy this answer will be.
The first point I'd make is that there's something strange about the way foreign policy is handled
in Washington DC.
The debate in foreign policy in Washington DC represents the merest sliver [00:47:30]
of the debate that occurs on foreign policy in the academic community more generally.
For example, the foremost proponents of our current strategy in academia are two guys
named Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth.
I had them here at the Cato Institute for a book forum in March.
According to them, they feel that they're in the minority in the academic community.
Let's just say at least 50% of academics in the international relations field [00:48:00]
are somewhat sympathetic to the Cato view of foreign policy.
Now, the Cato view on foreign policy is like an alien spaceship in Washington DC.
We are lone wolves.
Nobody cares to hear about this, both left and right.
There's a rough consensus on what US foreign policy ought to be, but it doesn't represent
most of the other really solid academically inclined viewpoints on what the role of the
United States should be.
In terms of persuading people, I think [00:48:30] that's a key point to make, that there's something
weird about how foreign policy is done.
That partly gets to this issue of what are the interests that are influencing people
to disregard other valid points of view.
There are all kinds.
I found this really interesting.
If you go back to 1970, there was a congressional investigation called 'Security Agreements
and [00:49:00] Commitments Abroad.'
It explained why the strategic use of US military bases abroad is never seriously scrutinized,
and I'm going to quote from it, if the listeners will forgive me.
Quote, "Once an American overseas base is established, it takes on a life of it's own.
Original missions may become outdated, but new missions are developed, not only with
the intent of keeping the facility going, but often actually to enlarge it.
Within the government departments most directly concerned, state department and defense department,
[00:49:30] we found little initiative to reduce or eliminate any of these overseas facilities;
which is only to be expected since they would be recommending a reduction in their own position."
The same logic holds today.
Entrenched interests both within government and outside it insist upon the current forward
deployed military strategy.
That creates basically no political incentive to propose changes to it.
But I think it's something we need to [00:50:00] consider.
I know that this is a radical proposal.
I did that partly to provoke people, but America's inherent safety, at the very least, should
incentivize people to scrutinize our overseas military base presence.
Aaron Powell: Thanks for listening.
This episode of Free Thoughts was produced by Tess Terrible and Evan Banks.
To learn more, visit us at www.libertarianism.org.
-------------------------------------------
HEAR O Moment: Amy, age 18 - Duration: 1:26.
My name is Amy. I'm 18 years old, and I have hearing aids on both ears.
When I got my hearing aids, I couldn't hear properly. Whenever kids would speak to me
directly, I would try to decipher what they would be saying. I would be like oh
my gosh can you repeat it. I needed hearing aids ASAP, because I
couldn't hear.
Once I got hearing aids,
everything in my life just went smooth. Everything was consistent. I like everything was just great, and before
without my hearing aids, I could barely hear the birds chirping or the wind
blowing. I like the feeling of hearing.
I am a graduate, and I'm going to go UNT, and I'm going to major in speech-
language pathology. I want to be an audiologist to help others to know that
they're not alone in this too. Before, I felt abnormal. I didn't feel
like who I was. Coming here, like, it was more like God sent me here. Like this is
what I needed. Thank you for helping kids like me hear better.
-------------------------------------------
Bad Baby Spiderman Play Toys Tools for Kids Drive Car Color Song Nursery Rhymes | Compilation Video - Duration: 10:35.
Thanks For Watching!
-------------------------------------------
What is a Lead Storage Battery - Duration: 3:32.
What is a Lead Storage Battery
Like all batteries, a Lead storage battery employs a chemical reaction to shop and produce
electrical energy.
Lead batteries use guide and direct oxide for your cathode and anode components of your
battery and sulfuric acid with the electrolyte.
These batteries are uncomplicated and inexpensive to manufacture, can provide a high peak discharge,
and they are rechargeable.
They don't, even so, hold as much Electrical power for every device of excess weight as
do more fashionable batteries.
This type of battery is broadly used to power the electrical starters of motor motor vehicles
in other apps in which Price is a lot more of an element than bodyweight.
All batteries use a cathode and an anode, product of a substances that could exchange
electrons with one another to succeed in a well balanced state if not for that presence
of an electrolyte Alternative that inhibits this transfer of electrons.
When recent is drawn from a battery, electrons are allowed to stream amongst the two poles,
within the anode to your cathode, as well as the inhibited chemical reaction usually
takes area.
No electrolyte has the capacity to perfectly insulate the anode and cathode, and so all
batteries eliminate cost slowly after some time.
Most direct storage batteries employ various cells, so the exact same chemical response
normally takes location in each individual mobile at the same time, a system that boosts
the peak discharge possible of your battery when minimizing the entire ability it might
shop.
In a very direct storage battery, both the anode plus the cathode interact chemically
With all the electrolyte Alternative at the same time.
Inside a billed battery, the anode is made up of lead along with the cathode of lead
oxide.
As being the battery is discharged, the two electrodes are transformed to guide sulfate,
as the electrolyte tub gets to be a lot less and less acidic, right until only drinking
water remains in the answer.
This process is reversed every time a lead storage battery is billed, and at complete
demand, the electrolyte Remedy of the direct-acid battery is usually a very acidic bathtub of
one-3rd sulfuric acid.
This sort of battery is relatively very easy to manufacture, as all of the necessary resources
are abundant.
Due to fairly very low energy to pounds ratio within a guide storage battery, nonetheless,
some compromises needs to be created of their design and style.
Batteries meant to provide an excessive amount of existing, which include these applied to
begin motor cars, should be created by combining many more compact battery cells with large,
skinny, fragile electrodes.
When ability is required about a longer stretch of time, lead storage batteries need to comprise
fewer but much larger and more resilient cells.
This kind of direct storage battery might be a bad option for setting up automobiles
but great for supplying modest quantities of portable electric power for computer backup
units or for appliances which include electric garden mowers, which have to have in no way
vacation far from a power supply.
Visit the website.
Click Below
-------------------------------------------
Spiderman with super cars and muscle vehicles || Entertainment show of 2017 - Duration: 10:03.
Spiderman with super cars and muscle vehicles || Entertainment show of 2017
Spiderman with super cars and muscle vehicles || Entertainment show of 2017
Spiderman with super cars and muscle vehicles || Entertainment show of 2017
Spiderman with super cars and muscle vehicles || Entertainment show of 2017
-------------------------------------------
Ooremn - New monologue by Vahe Berberian! - The Will - Duration: 1:09.
To my little sister Anoush,
I leave my 12 roomed Cote d'Azur villa.
(phone vibrating)
To my brother Alexan,
I leave three of my Yerevan buildings, which cost 2 million dollars.
To my brothers' son Peter,
who isn't all that there,
I leave my 6 antique automobiles.
And to my brothers' daughter Helen....
I leave....
two tickets for Vahe Berberian's new show 'Ooremn'.
YES!
For tickets to my new monologue 'Ooremn'
visit itsmyseat.com/ooremn or call 818.299.1154
-------------------------------------------
NWS Tulsa Briefing - Duration: 1:43.
Here's the labor day weekend weather briefing for Eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas from the National weather service office in Tulsa
It's Thursday afternoon august 31st
2017
The main weather story this week has been focused on Hurricane Harvey
Now harvey is just a tropical depression and the remnants will move across, Tennessee in Kentucky this weekend
Us closer to home. We'll see a warming trend through the weekend with high temperatures climbing back into the low 90s by Sunday and Monday
Cold front is set to arrive on Tuesday with a chance of showers and storms and cooler temperatures for the rest of next week
Here's some recent satellite imagery of tropical Depression Harvey as Harvey moves into Tennessee in Kentucky by Friday
We will see the clouds and precipitation now across Arkansas move east as well
And we should continue to see great weather here in Oklahoma and Western, Arkansas
The next cold front is due to arrive by Tuesday with a chance of showers and storms
It's too early to determine exactly which areas will see rain, but we can't say it will likely be dry through Monday
Temperatures on Tuesday and Wednesday will be running a few degrees lower than normal behind the cold front
for a great start to fall in early september
Here's a quick peek at the forecast for labor day weekend
There's a chance for rain showers across portions of Northern Oklahoma late Friday night into Saturday morning
Otherwise the forecast is dry and mild with the first chance of rain arriving with the front on Tuesday
Looks like great weather for those with outdoor plans
Thanks for listening and to check the latest forecasts
Please follow us on social Media or check our website for the latest information. Have a great weekend
-------------------------------------------
HEAR O Moment: Graycie, age 9 - Duration: 1:28.
My name is Graycie, and I'm 9, and I have two hearing aids.
I don't call them hearing aids. I call them super ears.
I like to play with my brother,
jump on the trampoline.
I love hearing my cat purr at night, when I cuddle with him. I just love that.
I love the sound of my mother's voice, as long as she's not yelling.
Before, I couldn't talk, and now I'm just talking, and I get, even get in trouble for
talking too much now.
Because of Callier, I can hear, and they just keep my super ears going, so I don't miss a thing.
I really like the audiologists.
They're so, so helpful.
I want to be a nurse and help people, because I like helping people.
I'm a super kid with super ears. Please be HEAR O to a kid like me.
-------------------------------------------
HEAR O Moment: Jack, age 15 - Duration: 1:32.
My name is Jack. I'm 15 years old, and I have a cochlear implant in each ear.
If I didn't have cochlear implants, I wouldn't be able to talk to my friends.
Everything would be much tougher. You come from completely deaf, and then be able to
hear almost 100%, that's pretty amazing.
I used to go to Callier two times a week,
and we used to do speech class - like practicing on my sound and like on each ear
take one ear off practice on the right ear or take the right ear off and practice on
the left ear. Two years ago, they said I'm done, because I have perfect speech.
I love to hear music. Laughing is another one that I like to hear too. I think I would definitely
miss that if I didn't have my hearing. Coming to Callier, one of the benefits is meeting other people
that have the same disability as you. That's huge.
It's really amazing. I've had cochlear implants for 13 years, and the technology
is astonishing! Without them, I wouldn't be able to speak the way I do today, and
I'm very grateful for that.
-------------------------------------------
7 Easy Steps To Use Text Effects In WhatsApp [100% Easy] Android Tricks - Duration: 2:31.
Welcome to TricksTutoring
SImply Open WhatsApp in your Android Phone
Then Tap on Chat tab
After Opening Messenger Tap Type a Message
Here Comes Text Effects
-------------------------------------------
Ethan Westwood Offical Trailer (2017) GTA 5 Roleplay - Duration: 3:37.
For more infomation >> Ethan Westwood Offical Trailer (2017) GTA 5 Roleplay - Duration: 3:37. -------------------------------------------
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017 - Duration: 1:25:31.
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017
Hajj 2017 Changing The Cloth Of Kaaba Hajj 2017 Changing Of Kaba Ghilaf 2017
-------------------------------------------
Schweden-Baby ist da: Prinzessin Sofia ist zum 2. Mal Mama! - Duration: 1:14.
For more infomation >> Schweden-Baby ist da: Prinzessin Sofia ist zum 2. Mal Mama! - Duration: 1:14. -------------------------------------------
HEAR O Moment: Miranda, age 16 - Duration: 1:10.
My name is Miranda, and I'm sixteen years old, and I have two cochlear implants.
I got my implants when I was five years old. What I like to do is play basketball,
listen to music, hanging out with my family. I love hearing my friends talk to me.
Callier has been enormously helped me with
speech. They got me into, more into the hearing world.
I want people to treat me in the way that they treat everybody else -
absolutely no different.
I want to be a deaf ed teacher, because I want to help the others and have them
not to go through what I'd gone through when I was little.
Everybody deserves to hear
and to hear well.
Thank you, Callier, for all you do.
-------------------------------------------
Ivanka ditches equal pay initiative despite campaigning for it MSNBC - Duration: 2:22.
For more infomation >> Ivanka ditches equal pay initiative despite campaigning for it MSNBC - Duration: 2:22. -------------------------------------------
$4.25 Survey Available Now
For more infomation >> $4.25 Survey Available Now-------------------------------------------
[ENG SUB] Luke Christopher - TMRWFRVR | Album Review (uncut) - Duration: 4:05.
Hi, my name is Jake and welcome to my review of Luke Christopher's debut album "TMRWFRVR".
Before this video starts I just wanted to address something.
This is my very first video on this channel.
Please excuse me if i'm doing something wrong, it'll get only better in the future.
Luke Christopher is 24 years old.
He is a singer, rapper, songwriter and produces his own stuff.
I'd say he's pretty much in the R'n'B and Pop Rap genre with artists like Drake, Big Sean or John Legend.
I'd refer to him as a SoundCloud rapper.
I personally first got into his music in 2015.
Back then he released 2 EP's called "TMRW" and "YSTRDY".
He also has so much good stuff on his SoundCloud page.
He even managed to get into the German Charts with his single "Lot to Learn".
He is definitely underrated.
Luke has got so much potential.
Like I said, "TMRWFRVR" is his debut album.
It has 15 tracks on it with a length of 45 minutes.
At first I was sure he's gonna drop an amazing project.
But I have to say that I'm kinda disappointed in this project.
The album sounds mostly like a ripoff from other popular artists.
It just sounds way too commercial in my opinion.
There is no doubt that he did that on purpose.
I'll give you guys a few examples:
On the track "Higher" it straight up sounds like a track off Drake's "Views" or "More Life".
"Give Me Your Pain" could've easily been on G-Eazy's or Macklemore's project with an feature of Sam Smith or Justin Bieber.
That's really sad because in my opinion Luke Christopher has been one of the most polarizing artists in Rap in a very long time
Don't get me wrong - the tracks don't sound that bad, it's for the most part well produced and also has an outstanding vocal performance sometimes.
The problem is that I really don't wanna hear these kinds of sounds from him.
It has way too many pop elements, it should've had way more rap elements.
They exist very rarely on this album, which is sad, because Luke's flow is simply incredible.
Let's talk about my most and least favorite tracks:
My favorite tracks are "Waterfalls", "Can't Sleep", "Selfless", "Jameson" and "Lot to Learn".
These tracks remind me of the style fans were used to before the release of this album.
The worst track on this album has to be "Complicated".
The beat sounds like it was meant to be put on T-Pain's 2011 project "rEVOLVEr" or Chris Brown's "Graffiti".
It's just weird.
I'm kinda upset because Luke Christopher has so much to offer.
I kinda wished that he had more rap tracks on it.
I also wish that he would stop sounding like other artists because he really doesn't need to be like that to get recognized by the Billboard Hot 100.
I'm feeling a 6/10 on this record.
It is really nothing special, but it could've been that.
That's my review of his new album.
I hope my first video wasn't that bad.
I am sorry if it was, though.
See you later in my next video! Bye!
-------------------------------------------
B型企業台中辦年會 林佳龍：理念適用城市治理 - Duration: 2:34.
For more infomation >> B型企業台中辦年會 林佳龍：理念適用城市治理 - Duration: 2:34. -------------------------------------------
India's first transgender beauty pageant | Nitasha Biswas is crowned as India's first trans Queen - Duration: 0:56.
For more infomation >> India's first transgender beauty pageant | Nitasha Biswas is crowned as India's first trans Queen - Duration: 0:56. -------------------------------------------
Monster truck put into action rescue people caught in flood waters in the wake of Hurricane Harvey - Duration: 2:07.
For more infomation >> Monster truck put into action rescue people caught in flood waters in the wake of Hurricane Harvey - Duration: 2:07. -------------------------------------------
Funny Animal Cartoons For more infomation >> Funny Animal Cartoons-------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> Funny Animal Cartoons-------------------------------------------
Cyril Hanouna annonce qu'Enora Malagré veut revenir dans TPMP (et ça n'est pas la seule) - Duration: 2:38.
For more infomation >> Cyril Hanouna annonce qu'Enora Malagré veut revenir dans TPMP (et ça n'est pas la seule) - Duration: 2:38. -------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> Cyril Hanouna annonce qu'Enora Malagré veut revenir dans TPMP (et ça n'est pas la seule) - Duration: 2:38.-------------------------------------------
VTS 01 1 - Duration: 29:40.
For more infomation >> VTS 01 1 - Duration: 29:40. -------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> VTS 01 1 - Duration: 29:40.-------------------------------------------
MY HIGHSCHOOL LOVER!{Alone time with Spider 4} - Duration: 19:25.
For more infomation >> MY HIGHSCHOOL LOVER!{Alone time with Spider 4} - Duration: 19:25. -------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> MY HIGHSCHOOL LOVER!{Alone time with Spider 4} - Duration: 19:25.-------------------------------------------
[ENG SUB] Luke Christopher - TMRWFRVR | Album Review (uncut) - Duration: 4:05.Hi, my name is Jake and welcome to my review of Luke Christopher's debut album "TMRWFRVR".
Before this video starts I just wanted to address something.
This is my very first video on this channel.
Please excuse me if i'm doing something wrong, it'll get only better in the future.
Luke Christopher is 24 years old.
He is a singer, rapper, songwriter and produces his own stuff.
I'd say he's pretty much in the R'n'B and Pop Rap genre with artists like Drake, Big Sean or John Legend.
I'd refer to him as a SoundCloud rapper.
I personally first got into his music in 2015.
Back then he released 2 EP's called "TMRW" and "YSTRDY".
He also has so much good stuff on his SoundCloud page.
He even managed to get into the German Charts with his single "Lot to Learn".
He is definitely underrated.
Luke has got so much potential.
Like I said, "TMRWFRVR" is his debut album.
It has 15 tracks on it with a length of 45 minutes.
At first I was sure he's gonna drop an amazing project.
But I have to say that I'm kinda disappointed in this project.
The album sounds mostly like a ripoff from other popular artists.
It just sounds way too commercial in my opinion.
There is no doubt that he did that on purpose.
I'll give you guys a few examples:
On the track "Higher" it straight up sounds like a track off Drake's "Views" or "More Life".
"Give Me Your Pain" could've easily been on G-Eazy's or Macklemore's project with an feature of Sam Smith or Justin Bieber.
That's really sad because in my opinion Luke Christopher has been one of the most polarizing artists in Rap in a very long time
Don't get me wrong - the tracks don't sound that bad, it's for the most part well produced and also has an outstanding vocal performance sometimes.
The problem is that I really don't wanna hear these kinds of sounds from him.
It has way too many pop elements, it should've had way more rap elements.
They exist very rarely on this album, which is sad, because Luke's flow is simply incredible.
Let's talk about my most and least favorite tracks:
My favorite tracks are "Waterfalls", "Can't Sleep", "Selfless", "Jameson" and "Lot to Learn".
These tracks remind me of the style fans were used to before the release of this album.
The worst track on this album has to be "Complicated".
The beat sounds like it was meant to be put on T-Pain's 2011 project "rEVOLVEr" or Chris Brown's "Graffiti".
It's just weird.
I'm kinda upset because Luke Christopher has so much to offer.
I kinda wished that he had more rap tracks on it.
I also wish that he would stop sounding like other artists because he really doesn't need to be like that to get recognized by the Billboard Hot 100.
I'm feeling a 6/10 on this record.
It is really nothing special, but it could've been that.
That's my review of his new album.
I hope my first video wasn't that bad.
I am sorry if it was, though.
See you later in my next video! Bye!
-------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> [ENG SUB] Luke Christopher - TMRWFRVR | Album Review (uncut) - Duration: 4:05.-------------------------------------------
Cernes, mauvaise haleine, ballonnements : des signes à ne pas prendre à la légère ! - Duration: 2:19.
For more infomation >> Cernes, mauvaise haleine, ballonnements : des signes à ne pas prendre à la légère ! - Duration: 2:19. -------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> Cernes, mauvaise haleine, ballonnements : des signes à ne pas prendre à la légère ! - Duration: 2:19.-------------------------------------------
$4.25 Survey Available Now For more infomation >> $4.25 Survey Available Now-------------------------------------------
BMW 5 Serie 530D HIGH EXECUTIVE M SPORT - Duration: 1:00.
For more infomation >> BMW 5 Serie 530D HIGH EXECUTIVE M SPORT - Duration: 1:00. -------------------------------------------
BMW X4 xDrive20dA High Executive Sportstoelen | M-Sportpakket | Xenon | - Duration: 0:57.
For more infomation >> BMW X4 xDrive20dA High Executive Sportstoelen | M-Sportpakket | Xenon | - Duration: 0:57. -------------------------------------------
Fiat 500 1.2 AUTOMAAT / NAVIGATIE / BLUETOOTH / AIRCO / APK T/M 28-08-2018 - Duration: 0:54.
For more infomation >> Fiat 500 1.2 AUTOMAAT / NAVIGATIE / BLUETOOTH / AIRCO / APK T/M 28-08-2018 - Duration: 0:54. -------------------------------------------
I'm Sorry - Off The Charts | truTV - Duration: 1:01.
I call "Off The Charts".
I'm not enjoying it so far, but, okay.
I got my results back today and my sperm is off the charts.
Oh! Yay, yay, yay!
Okay, see? Maybe we're not as old as we thought we were.
I'm still clinging on by my fingertips.
Well, the only thing I'm clinging onto
is the edge of the charts.
Really?
But don't take my word for it, here.
Oh, this very official medical document
that just weirdly happened to be on your nightstand?
Yep.
Mobility off the charts, consistency off the charts.
Oh! Cytoplasmic droplets. Cytoplasmic droplets.
Cytoplasmic droplets.
Two? Two doesn't seem off the charts.
Tail length, OTC.
"Tail length"? Like that's the sexy part of your sperm,
the tail length? Did I over-play the tail length? Did I over-play the tail length?
Did I over-play the tail length?
Look, is this going to be something that you just,
-------------------------------------------
Screenwriting | How Kubrick Adapted 'The Shining' into a Cinematic Masterpiece - Duration: 20:31.
Hello cinephiles!
Whenever I think of The Shining, I'm always amazed by the sheer number of iconic moments
in a single movie.
So, I wanted to take a look at the writing process and see how we ended up with such
a masterpiece of cinema.
Now, there have been plenty of great videos on The Shining as well as videos specifically
about the script, but I want to go deeper.
How was it written and what exactly is happening from a storytelling perspective?
What was it like to collaborate with Kubrick on this screenplay?
How did the movie wind up so different than Stephen King's original novel?
How close did they stick to the screenplay during production?
What were Kubrick's thoughts on horror?
All that and more on this episode of Making Film...
In 1975, Barry Lyndon had hit the theaters and Stanley Kubrick was eager to find a subject
for his next film.
After he finishes a film, he just begins to read anything he can get his hands on, hoping
to find a subject that has certain cinematic possibilities.
Kubrick: "I don't find any systematic way of reading.
It's a terrifying prospect when you realize all the books there are in the world that
you're never going to read or that you should read, so I find by just reading at random,
that seems like the best approach" (A Voix Nue).
There was an interesting bit in American Film magazine, which noted that Kubrick acquired
many books on the supernatural.
He would sit in his office and read.
If after a few pages, he didn't think the book was interesting, he'd [quote] "fling
it across the room against the wall."
Apparently Kubrick's secretary outside noticed that the sounds of books hitting the wall
had stopped.
She went in and found him reading The Shining (Kubrick Companion).
It's hard to tell if there is much truth to this story, but John Calley, an executive
at Warner Brothers, sent Kubrick the manuscript of The Shining and when asked about the book,
Kubrick said, "The Shining I found very compulsive reading, and I thought the plot, ideas, and
structure were much more imaginative
than anything I've ever read in the genre" (The Soho News Interview).
Warner Brothers had bought the rights to Stephen King's book shortly after it was published
in 1977 and they also bought a screenplay based on the book written by King himself (Kubrick Companion).
However, Kubrick wanted to use the novel as simply a jumping-off point and therefore he
didn't read King's screenplay nor did he wish to collaborate
with him on a new screenplay (Kubrick Companion).
It's interesting to note that nearly all of Kubrick's films are adapted from previous
books and there are a couple of reasons for this:
First, Kubrick felt that there aren't many original screenwriters who are at a high enough
caliber as some of the greatest novelists— unless they plan on directing the film themselves.
And second, and perhaps most important, is that it allowed him to see the story more
objectively and, as Kubrick puts it [quote] "If you read a story which someone else has
written, you have the irreplaceable experience of reading it for the first time.
This is something which you obviously cannot have if you write an original story" (Archives).
This way, Kubrick could experience the story as a whole and an entirely unique experience
and then evaluate what it was about the book that affected him.
He could get at the core of what was good about the story, strip away the clutter, and
enhance the most brilliant aspects with a profound sense of hindsight.
(Something we probably all wish we could do with certain movies).
For the task of adapting the book for the screen,
Kubrick enlisted the help of novelist Diane Johnson.
He had met her in 1976, when he considered making a film adaptation of her book The Shadow Knows--
a psychological thriller about a woman harassed by an unknown menace (Kubrick Companion).
They had discussed the book extensively and, at the time, she was teaching a class at
UC Berkeley on the Gothic novel (New Perspectives 285).
So, when he ultimately decided on pursuing a film adaptation of The Shining he thought
that it would be interesting to work with her.
Kubrick said, "[S]he seemed to be the ideal collaborator,
which, indeed, she proved to be" (Archives).
In early 1977, Johnson spoke at length with Kubrick over ten days and then she received
an outline later that year (New Perspectives 285).
It wasn't until March 17th, 1978 that Johnson
began working with Kubrick on the story full-time (New Perspectives 288).
She said, "The driver would come and pick me up every morning and drive me out there
[to Kubrick's house].
I would stay all day, through dinner.
We would work in the morning and then Stanley would have a lot of things to do because he
was doing the sets and the second unit were already in America" (New Perspectives 288).
Johnson and Kubrick had long discussions around literature, particularly Gothic horror—
Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, and stories by Edgar Allan Poe.
They also watched movies every night—many of them starred Jack Nicholson specifically
to see whether they liked him more as a "depressive"
or a "hyped-up animated" character (New Perspectives 288).
They discussed The Shining for over a month before writing a single word (Kubrick Companion).
Many of their discussions started from simple questions posed by Kubrick.
Johnson said, "Stanley uses the Socratic method: is the husband a nice man?
Does his wife love him?
What kind of clothes would she wear?
In this way, Kubrick got to know and understand his characters before setting them in motion
for themselves" (Kubrick Companion).
Johnson also said, Kubrick's "approach was very literary and intellectual, he was big
on outlines, big on lists and he focused on clearly expressing the implications of a scene
or the problems that it posed" (New Perspectives 288).
They also drew a fair amount of inspiration from Bruno Bettelheim's study of fairy tales
titled, The Uses of Enchantment and the writings of Sigmund Freud,
but more on that later (Kubrick Companion).
Johnson and Kubrick each came up with their own short plot outline for The Shining based
on their talks and then came together to compare, rearrange scenes, and ultimately write a [quote]
"more fleshed-out outline" (Archives).
They worked on the screenplay for 11 weeks in England
and then Johnson left for the United States (New Perspectives 288).
She returned to England in 1978 for a few weeks to work on the script during shooting.
Johnson said, there were "a lot of phone conversations about details and things.
When I left the second time there was a pretty good script.
Stanley went on to make some changes
but most of them he checked with me" (New Perspectives 288).
Without Johnson's contributions to the screenplay, the film might be very different and it is
important to recognize the work that she put into
crafting such a great adaptation with Kubrick.
On October 17th, 1979, Kubrick had her contact the Writers Guild to notify them that he wanted
there to be a shared screenwriting credit on all of the
publicity and advertising (New Perspectives 289).
Kubrick's first treatment, completed on June 20, 1977,
was 36 pages and contained 61 scenes.
The treatment ends when Grady removes the bolt to the pantry door freeing Jack.
This is one of the most important moments in the film as it is the first time there
is any evidence of a ghost having any affect on the physical world.
All supernatural aspects of the film up to that point could very well be happening only
in the minds of the characters or have some other explanation (SK Reads SK).
Wendy: "You did this to him!
Didn't you!?"
Kubrick: "I've always enjoyed the genre and I felt that I hadn't really seen a picture
that presented that genre.
There have been pictures which have had shocks in them and which have had some wonderfully
gory or horrific moments.
But to properly present that type of a story in a way where you could [disbelieve] and
get involved in the story and the supernatural events were presented in a way which seemed
dramatically realistic.
What I found so ingenious about the way the novel was written, as the very supernatural
events occurred, which you always wonder to yourself, 'how is the writer ever going
to explain this?'.
The way the story is written, you assume as you read it that the things that are happening
are probably going to be a product of his imagination.
And I think this allows you to start accepting them, and not worry.
It isn't really until the bolt is open that you're absolutely certain that it isn't
a product of his imagination" (A Voix Nue).
The guiding principle for Kubrick's journey into horror came from an H.P.
Lovecraft essay that states, "In all things that are mysterious—never explain" (Soho News Article).
Kubrick expands upon this in an interview saying, "as long as what happens stimulates
people's imagination, their sense of the uncanny, their sense of anxiety and fear.
And as long as it doesn't, within itself, have any obvious inner contradictions, it
is just a matter of, as it were, building on the imagination (imaginary ideas, surprises, etc.),
working in this area of feeling" (The Soho News Interview).
Kubrick was keen on using the audience's own imagination against them and, by introducing
mystery and the suggestion of horror, the audience can fill in the blanks
with their own fears.
The story beats are very simple, there isn't a big convoluted story to follow like in many
horror films.
Instead, we are watching with a mindset based more on emotion over logic, but we get both.
We get lost in the mystery, but we are also concerned with survival.
We experience the fear of the mystery and the logical thinking of
how to escape the situation.
Kubrick uses the first expositional scenes to tell us, more or less, that this guy is
going to go crazy and try to murder his family and this boy is a clairvoyant.
In this way, we are placed in a similar situation as Danny.
We know Jack will go crazy, but there isn't anything we can do about it.
Then we are left to watch it all unfold.
Jack: "Well, you can rest assured, Mr. Ullman, that's not going to happen with me."
In early versions of the script, quite a great deal was explained, in fact, there was a storyline
that was discarded that involved Danny finding a scrapbook full of newspaper clippings of
all of strange things that have happened at the Overlook Hotel.
There was another version where Jack finds it in the cellar as well as a version where
the scrapbook just appears on his desk (SK Reads SK 192).
We can see the scrapbook on his desk in the final film, however, there is no mention of it.
Another guiding principle was raised by Kubrick in a separate interview.
He says, "... in fantasy you want things to have the appearance of being as realistic
as possible.
People should behave in the mundane way they normally do.
You have to be especially careful about this in the scenes which deal with the bizarre
or fantastic details of the story" (Archives).
This contrast makes the extraordinary more powerful and we can see this in the actors
as well (Archives).
Mundane
Fantastic
The opening scenes are presented almost exceedingly ordinary...
Hallorann: "How do you folks like our hotel so far?"
Wendy: "Oh, it's just wonderful!
Hi Danny!"
Since the beginning, Kubrick knew that he didn't want the ghosts to be bright or transparent
as you see in most film and television depictions of spirits.
He said that, in the stories of people who have claimed to see ghosts, they are always
described as solid and seeming very much like a real person (A Voix Nue).
Films and television often use transparency to help communicate to the audience that what
we are seeing is a spirit.
Kubrick subverts this and uses context, but there is actually a deeper reason why Kubrick
would choose to depict the ghosts as solid and somewhat normal looking human beings.
You see, Johnson and Kubrick drew a great deal of inspiration from Freud's essay on
The Uncanny.
If I'm understanding it correctly, Freud defines the uncanny by using the German word
heimlisch which means 'homely' or 'cozy/comfortable' but uses unheimlisch to refer to a feeling
of uncomfortableness inside the home.
It is something unfamiliar and possibly threatening within something that is familiar.
This can refer to the Overlook seeming like a perfectly normal hotel with some unknown
interior threat, but it can also relate to people.
Freud notes the fear of inanimate objects somehow becoming sentient, like in Poltergeist
(although he says that, this is not usually terrifying for small children who often treat
inanimate objects like living things for fun).
And in Poltergeist, the youngest character has the least amount of fear.
Carol: "They're heeeere…"
However, as Freud points out, the reverse is also terrifying—something that looks
like a person, but is not.
We can see this in the most terrifying moments such as the Grady Twins
and the woman in the bathtub.
We don't know what these people are or what they are capable of and we don't know if
they exist at all or if there is some sort of disturbance in the characters' minds.
Perhaps the most terrifying of all is a combination of these two concepts— at the beginning,
Jack Torrance seems normal and he is a familiar member of the Torrance family, but over the
course of the film, he becomes something unfamiliar, looking like himself, but his actions and
psychosis make him a threat.
We can see a similar concept at play a few years earlier in William Friedkin's
The Exorcist where a woman's young daughter is possessed by a demon.
Incidentally, Kubrick was offered the job of directing The Exorcist but turned it down.
Despite really enjoying Stephen King's book, Kubrick knew that the story had to be substantially
changed in order to bring it into the medium of film.
Kubrick said, "The main problem with The Shining was to work out the structure of the story
and to reinvent those paragraphs where the action was insufficient.
(...) Diane and I talked endlessly about the book, and then we designed the frame for the
scenes, which we thought the movie should contain.
The scenes on this list were changed over and over again
until we were satisfied" (S.K. reads S.K. 190).
I imagine he means cutting the inner monologues and much of the dialogue of the book and trying
to translate the story into something more visual.
Now, I'm not very familiar with the book, but there are some notable changes from the
book as well as many iterations of the script.
The bigger changes, in terms of character, were making Wendy into a weaker mousy character
because Kubrick thought she was more realistic for the purpose of the story and a stronger
woman would be less likely to put up with Jack.
This change actually happened fairly late in the writing process (S.K. reads S.K. 190).
They also used the H.P. Lovecraft principle
and removed most of the backstory save for a couple of remarks throughout—
most of which are in the scenes with Lloyd the bartender.
Kubrick said, "From Jack's character, for instance, all the rather cumbersome references
to his family life have disappeared in the film, and that's for the better.
I don't think the audience is likely to miss the many and self-consciously 'heavy'
pages King devotes to things like Jack's father's drinking problem or Wendy's mother.
To me, all that is quite irrelevant.
There's the case of putting in too many psychological clues of trying to explain why
Jack is the way he is, which is not really important" (The Soho News Interview).
I think that is a major key in what makes Jack so scary— we don't have a real sense
of his humanity.
The earlier treatments stuck much closer to the book.
One early treatment explained the woman in the bathtub as a victim of suicide, which
Kubrick made a comment that [quote] "We don't need to know."
These early treatments also had Tony, you know, Tony
as a character who Danny would actually see.
Hallorann trekking out to the hotel after a telepathic communication from Danny and
the ballroom scene with Grady are some of the earliest plot points that that made it
through each version and into the final film (S.K. reads S.K. 191).
The second draft of the screenplay, from July 12, 1977, actually contained a scene with
Danny and the woman in room 237—which happens off-screen in the final film.
What's interesting is that this version of the script describes the ball rolling up
to Danny with the sound of the Grady twins giggling and possibly glimpses of them, letting
us know not only who rolled the ball, but that the twins
and the woman are somehow connected (S.K. reads S.K. 191).
And, as some have pointed out, it is possible that Kubrick isn't cutting between the old
woman with Jack and the same woman in the tub.
They might be two different people.
You can see that one has much shorter hair.
Perhaps they are the Grady twins.
As for the third draft, from August 1, 1977, we could have actually seen Jack's nightmare
of him killing Wendy and Danny as well as a flashback where Jack beats up a student,
which caused him to be fired from his teaching job (S.K. reads S.K. 191).
According to an essay by Ursula Von Keitz, these scenes were removed to ensure that we
are kept in the present as the characters are experiencing it (S.K. reads S.K. 191).
The fourth draft, dated August 15, 1977, is the first time there is some kind of ending written
and, boy, is it a doozy.
Jack surprises Wendy and Danny after he is freed from the pantry and he injures her.
She hits Jack with a rifle butt and then Hallorann arrives at the hotel
and is hit in the head by Jack.
Wendy kills Jack and rushes to help Hallorann and then a grinning Grady walks up to them
and greets Hallorann by saying:
"Good evening, chief."
The script ends with forest rangers entering the hotel filled with snow from broken windows
and finds the bodies of Danny, Wendy, and Jack as well as Halloran who has [quote]
"blown his brains out" (S.K. reads S.K. 191).
There were really an incredible amount of iterations of the script.
Here are just some of the ideas that were included in drafts that were ultimately scrapped:
Tony speaks with a voiceover, Hallorann arrives at the hotel and turns evil with Grady and
fights with Wendy, Halloran becomes demonic with destructive powers, Danny finds bloody
girls' shoes in a sand pit, Danny sees a wall covered in blood and brain matter, a
flashback of the incident when Jack injured Danny, and a version with more Native American
imagery including a mask that appears in Danny's visions (S.K. reads S.K. 194, 195).
I believe that some of these were taken from the book, but speaking of the novel...
One of the more brilliant changes from the book was in Hallorann's demise.
In the book Hallorann journeys to the hotel and saves Wendy and Danny and the film sets
this thread in motion only to have Hallorann axed the moment he shows up at the hotel.
I love the idea of this moment surprising the people who had previously read the book
because this moment marks a point where they too don't know what will happen next.
One thing that's really cool is all of the notes by Kubrick in the margins of the script
as well as the book.
We can really get a sense that new ideas were constantly being tested and the script was
being distilled and simplified and refined.
I've made a page with the notes I was able to find.
Click the card to check it out.
Jack: "Go check it out!"
Now, as Lessons From the Screenplay mentioned, the actual scripts for The Shining are only
available to see at the Kubrick Archives in London.
However, I imagine that if you had the chance to read them, you might find them fairly unremarkable.
The purpose of these drafts was to get a sense of what the film would be,
but it was all very fluid.
Diane Johnson was quoted saying, "The writing was secondary to knowing who the characters
were, what the events were, and the exact function of every scene.
Stanley kept saying, 'When you know what's happening in a scene, the words will follow'" (Archives).
It wasn't until the production itself that the script entered a
completely new phase of rewriting.
Kubrick:"But I find that the structure, you know, the events, if they're right, you
know, if the moments are right, it usually is fairly simple to write the scene.
There are times in various films where there hasn't even been time to write the scene.
It's never been solved until, say, two days before you do it, you just couldn't think.
Once you know what's supposed to happen, really, you sort of write the scene on the
actors— as it were—in the rehearsal.
I mean, that part of the scene, the dialogue, is not the most difficult.
It isn't in this type of story.
It is, obviously, in a film where someone is going to sit and talk for thirty minutes
in one place, you know, like a play.
When the attitude of the people is correct and the purpose of the scene is correct and
the action of the scene is interesting, then the rest of it is pretty simple" (A Voix Nue).
Kubrick's approach during the production phase was to get the actors to collaborate
on their character, make suggestions, and this way, the story is constantly getting
better even as it is being filmed.
Kubrick said, "The key part in shooting a film is not to necessarily execute what you
had in mind but [to] stay loose in case you have a better idea" (Kubrick: New Perspectives 294).
When asked if he lets the actors improvise, Kubrick said,
"Yes. I find that no matter how carefully you write a scene, when you rehearse it for the first
time there always seems to be something completely different, and you realize that there are
interesting ideas in the scene which you never thought of, or that ideas that you thought
were interesting aren't.
Or that the weight of the idea is unbalanced; something is too obvious or not clear enough,
so I very often rewrite the scene with the rehearsal.
I feel it's the way you can take the best advantage of both the abilities of the actors
and even perhaps the weaknesses of the actors.
If there's something they aren't doing, or it's pretty clear they can't do (I
must say that's not true in The Shining because they were so great), you suddenly
become aware of ideas and possibilities which just didn't occur to you" (The Soho News Interview).
Diane Johnson: "When it came to the shooting, he cut out a lot of Wendy's lines…
They didn't get along (he and Shelly Duvall) and he didn't like
the way she would say the lines.
And so he'd say, 'oh, well then nevermind. Cut that.'
And so, finally it came down to her just screaming a lot, basically, as you probably remember."
If something isn't working, it is usually the script that is the issue.
There really isn't a point in trying to stick so rigidly to the script if it doesn't
work with the actors or some other reason.
Kubrick continues saying, "I've always been impressed reading that some directors sketch
out the scenes and can actually find that it works.
It may be some shortcoming of my screenplay, but I find that no matter how good it ever
looks on paper, the minute you start in the actual set, with the actors, you're terribly
aware of not taking the fullest advantage of what's possible if you actually stick
to what you wrote.
I also found that thinking of shots, or thinking of the way to shoot a scene before you've
actually rehearsed it and got it to the point where something is actually happening that
is worth putting on film, will frequently prevent you from really getting into the deepest
possible result of the scene" (The Soho News Interview).
Thanks for watching!
The Shining was suggested by my patrons over on Patreon.
I want to thank my patrons for supporting this channel— it is because of you that
I'm able to make these videos.
If you'd like to support this channel, head on over to Patreon now, pledge a dollar or more
and you will be able to submit movie suggestions for the next vote.
And if you're new here, please hit that subscribe button now, because there are plenty
more videos on the way for cinephiles like you!
Thanks again for watching!
-------------------------------------------
BIG NEWS!! t.A.T.u. PROJECT! + BLACKPINK AND t.A.T.u. sims 4 version DOWNLOAD! AND MORE!! - Duration: 4:48.
Hello everyboddyyy!!
so
that's the first time i'm putting my voice over a video
and yeah, and i'm really not used to it
so, the first thing that i want to talk about it with you today it's this
me and a friend of mine decided to make a k-pop duo
from the sims charachters, i saw this already in italy, people createee *thinking* groups with sims, yeah, here they are
le Mean Girls
actually this "le", it's because, you know
i was raised in Italy, and you can hear it from the accent
"Le", it's like "the", the mean girls, you know, and this is "le mean girls"
i had to keep the aesthetics, you know, a fierce, glamorous look
and yeah, i tried to sing in Korean! you know? it's probably a mess, but *tsk* we're okay with that *lying*
I actually don't know if you heard about Blackpink, they are an amazing k-pop group
I actually love them, so! i tried to recreate them on the sims 4
And i have let you a download link for them the description
I want to say that i've made t.A.T.u as well on the sims 4 and you can find the download link on the description box
just go and check and you will find them there
i'm making an announce, it's a really important announce, i'm looking for artists, who needs for instrumentals, beats, producing, you know?
or graphic designing, covers, artworks or writing lyrics, background vocals. The prices are really low and they are up for debate
All depends on your budget, if you can't afford the prices, in special cases, i can give some works, give away some works for free
'cause i really care about music, music is my passion, i really want to help people, for example, who are trying to break through the industry
And make a name for themselves, really i'm here to help
-------------------------------------------
Road Trip #186 - I-49 South - Exit 73: Woodworth to Exit 46: St Landry, Louisiana - Duration: 10:59.
Welcome back to 504 Road Trips!
Today, we continue south on I-49 beginning at mile 73, near the town of Woodworth, in
Rapides Parish, Louisiana.
Along the right hand side of I-49 is a narrow strip of protected land and water called the
Acadiana Conservation Corridor Wildlife Management Area.
This 26 mile corridor spans 4 parishes, and is only accessible by boat.
We temporarily cross into a small corner of Evangeline Parish, for less than a mile.
We'll see Evangeline again in the next video.
Then we enter Avoyelles Parish.
Avoyelles Parish has a population of 41,117.
We conclude today's video at exit 46, St. Landry.
Thanks for watching.
Please subscribe, give us a thumbs up, share, comment below, follow us on social media,
and join us for our next 504 Road Trip!
-------------------------------------------
HEAR O Moment: Jack, age 15 - Duration: 1:32.My name is Jack. I'm 15 years old, and I have a cochlear implant in each ear.
If I didn't have cochlear implants, I wouldn't be able to talk to my friends.
Everything would be much tougher. You come from completely deaf, and then be able to
hear almost 100%, that's pretty amazing.
I used to go to Callier two times a week,
and we used to do speech class - like practicing on my sound and like on each ear
take one ear off practice on the right ear or take the right ear off and practice on
the left ear. Two years ago, they said I'm done, because I have perfect speech.
I love to hear music. Laughing is another one that I like to hear too. I think I would definitely
miss that if I didn't have my hearing. Coming to Callier, one of the benefits is meeting other people
that have the same disability as you. That's huge.
It's really amazing. I've had cochlear implants for 13 years, and the technology
is astonishing! Without them, I wouldn't be able to speak the way I do today, and
I'm very grateful for that.
-------------------------------------------
Roberto by RFM "Ondate" SpiralStyle Bypass Ring - Duration: 3:50.
For more infomation >> Roberto by RFM "Ondate" SpiralStyle Bypass Ring - Duration: 3:50. -------------------------------------------
10 TIPS TO DECLUTTER YOUR HOME // change your life! - Duration: 5:27.
hello welcome to my channel so for today's video I'm going to do something
a little bit different typically I talk about health and nutrition because I am
a nutritionist but for today we're going to talk about something lifestyle
related because I think to have a healthy life you need a happy life and a happy
life comes from happy lifestyle. So in this video I'm just going to discuss things
that I've learned over the last few years about decluttering. Let's get
started. Number one start decluttering in the room that you use most often it can
be tempting to declutter a room that you don't really use a smaller room but when
you declutter that room you're not going to feel the sense of accomplishment
you're not going to want to go and declutter the rest of your home so I
always recommend start off by decluttering the room that you use the
most often which for me is my kitchen and I live in my kitchen and once that's
done I feel really good I feel a sense of accomplishment like yes I did
something let's tackle the rest of the house now number two ask yourself three
questions while you declutter does this item give you joy so this is a concept
that I picked up for Marie Kondo's book and it's all about having stuff around
you that gives you joy so if an item doesn't make you happy
you shouldn't even bother keeping it in your home number two is this item
functional does it work does it serve a purpose number three have you used this
item in the last year now if you can answer yes to any of these questions
keep the item if you can't answer yes to any of them maybe that item deserves
discarding tip number three deal with paper clutter
weekly so all those Flyers and magazines and newspapers and God knows how many
letters you get in the mail deal with them weekly otherwise they pile up and
then you have a lot of things to deal with the end here
if you're buying something new think it through
now whenever I'm looking to buy something new I put it on a wish list
first it stays on that wish list for at least a week or several weeks and if I
come back a week later and I still want the item that means I really love it
otherwise I just cross it off the list tip number five do a closet cleanse so
this sounds really daunting and to be honest it does take some time but it
will change your life trust me I've had a friend who did a closet cleanse but I
recommended it to her and she is loving her new closet because it takes her much
less time to get ready and it's not as cluttered so what do I mean by a closet
cleanse what I mean is figure it out a closet that works for your lifestyle
think about it we all spend a lot of time in our
closets first thing in the morning trying to figure out what to wear and if
you can streamline that process by only having items that you truly love and
only having items that really easily mix and match you're gonna make your life a
lot easier tackle those junk drawer so we all have
Junkers these are drawers for things that don't have a home junk drawers
aren't the problem it's when we never clean them and then
it's been a year and this is all sorts of stuff I have one junk drawer in my
house it's in the entrance area and I put all sorts of stuff in there that
doesn't have a home but every month I look into it and see if there's stuff
that can be discarded or stuff that can be moved to a new home
tip number seven don't eat the gifts that you don't use so we all get gifts
and some are sentimental so obviously keep those gifts don't really attach to
them and you don't know what to do they're not really for you but someone
else could use them sitter be gifting or consider donating the item so at least
someone else can use it keep the visual clutter to a minimum so
what do I mean by visual clutter it's the stuff that's all around your home on
your furniture and the decorative items and everyone's tolerance to visual
clutter is different what's clutter to you may not be cluttered to mean vice
versa tip number nine get your family support
so if you live in a household which is more than just you you are going to deal
with other people's clutter and if your family's not on board or the
decluttering you can declutter but it's not going to make enough of a difference
10 which is the final tip is review every year or every six months whatever
works for you I like to do a spring clean where I do a full decluttering
every year because you know what no matter how much you declutter the
clutter happens again it comes from somewhere so there you have it ten tips
to declutter your home and embrace minimalism in the process if you like
the video and you learn something you give it a thumbs up and don't forget to
subscribe thanks for watching I will see you in the next video
-------------------------------------------
Volkswagen Polo Beats 1.0 TSI 110PK AUTOMAAT - Duration: 1:02.
For more infomation >> Volkswagen Polo Beats 1.0 TSI 110PK AUTOMAAT - Duration: 1:02. -------------------------------------------
GROW YOUR BUSINESS IN 2017, RAISE YOUR PRICES & REACH YOUR GOALS I BREAKTHROUGHS WITH BENSON 003 - Duration: 17:48.
I think you know not having the
context for the company that you have and all
these different things, um getting ??????
these different aspects. I think the main thing
is
um
yes, so the main thing is what I would do with
you
is start testing and driving it more
aggressively
Architect, different
assets that your business has and start
documenting different things that your target
audience the people that you're looking for
when you have these assets let's say
Asset number A that people are finding value from
Asset number B, asset
number C. You start distributing these assets
across uh facebook. Youtube, and all these
different assets
and then you'll be able to distribute them. The
ads amplify it, but essentially you want to give
away
some core pieces of value to what your target
audience wants. Let say you're offering a product
then you want take something that's complimentary
to your product and offer it to the target audience.
If you're selling a service like you said the free
minute call, bundle something with that 10 minutes
call and amplify that
and then test these different offers to Your
target audience and don't just look at Reddit, Youtube
facebook and all these different audiences, but
look at where your target audiences invest most
of the time. What websites they stay on
uh which shops they go to really understand
really deeply about your target audience. Look at
the conferences or any events or meeting that they
attend, any books, what kind of books they read
shows they watch really get down to the details.
Then once you have that, what I call the ideal
client avatar you'll be able to look at across
the entire media landscape, all these different areas
for you to pull your assets in and be able
to generate more leads a lot of this is just
gonna be testing different offers you also want to
make sure that your copy hits to the core of your
target audience so that's without all your
business and a lot of the details. What I would
do if I were in your shoes.
What I would do to
get the best bang for your buck of your 200
dollars let's say, regardless of just selling
a product or service there's five layers that you
wanna start with first thing is you, let's assume
that you have an email list, you have a website. You wanna start
with people that are going through your website
or visiting your pages. They're watching your
videos essentially the audience that's engaging
with you they've been through what I call the
influential indoctrination, which means they've
gone through your e-mails, the videos, they
consume your content. They've already entered
into your world they're familiar with your brand, with who
you are. Then once you have that you're able to target
them on on facebook. I think 99 percent B2B, B2C
audiences are can be target on facebook. You just
gotta make sure that the creatives, the assets the
copy all these different things are native to the
platform that you build so start with people
have engage with your brand. The second also with
those of you have built an email list. You can do
custom audiences for email list too. The third thing
I would do is build it look like audience
so look like audience essentially you're able to
send Email for people that visited your website
You're able to build
separate audience that facebook basically matches
and says hey Sally from ABC area let's say
from the New York area. That knows this, like
this. Facebook will find similar people like
Sally and build an audience for you. So that's the
third one, the fourth one is you wanna still
looking the interest targeting
now most people make a mistake with facebook when
they start with interest targeting because they
feel like that's really the easiest way, but
that's actually one of the best ways to waste a lot of
money you wanna always start with the warmest
audience that you have. The people that have
engaged with you and then you can put them into.
Now, the traffic side to is only one piece of
that you wanna be able to when people go to the
traffic what is that progression of you putting
them through, what are they seeing, like what is your
goal where are you driving the traffic are you drive
them into a different step funnel. A progression.
What is that process look like you gonna get drop
offs along the way as they progress through
during your world or the campaign are you putting
them through so it's not just focus on the
traffic side to focus on what are they going to
go through, as your driving the traffic. So those
are some key insights for you that I look into
video and also info graphic.
I think, if you only have the choice to do one
you wanna look at the target audience that you're aiming
for and how they consume content if there
if they're 50 plus
years old and they're they're males, then ideally
you want to use a shorts in depth video to get
them into it. If there a even of them millennials
say 20 to 25 most cases video is the most
engaging way
um
actually no, I think in my mind, I think start with video
do explain the video and then pull the video that
you've created and turn that into an infographic.
If you can do both do both test what works. If
you can only do one then do the video
okay so I will focus on
really like you said you looking at the engage levels
recently, Facebook's algorithm has has dropping
engagement. Obviously Facebook's platform and how they
monetize your ads so they want you to boost your post
to advertisements on their. And their
platform is diamond, one of the best
advertising platform because they have billions of people now on
it
I would look at really
a I'm assuming let's say the six thousand people
are liking the page you really wanna see who they
are there's. Some tools out there that you can
use to measure the audience and look at what
location that they are, even the native
Facebook. As a native platform you can do that.
what I would also do is I would focus on
understanding. What's your intention with buying
that page, meaning that are you just kinda using it to
to build up your positioning so you have like a
page with six thousand like on it or using it's a
kind of you will have info product or service or
you wanna drive into let's say as an affiliate to
some travel agencies that you want to
go with it
Depending on the goal that you have your gonna
have different tactical implementation that you do.
If you want to sell as an affiliate to all these
different tours sites. You wanna start creating
content around those different things, build that
trust and value assuming that there isn't any
trusted value on the page right now and then you
start moving forward to that if you wanna sell a
product or service: same thing, you start
educating them on different areas and different
places. I think, if you're trying to target
people that are traveling, the difficulty is you never
really know when they wanna travel and so that's
really one of the difficulties with a lot of people and
lot of the websites that are selling travel and
and all these different things so
I would focus on just creating and educating a
lot of the people that are on the page, post a
lot of interesting creative stuff and then drive
into something. That's not just on the facebook
platform native. But put them onto something that's
a website or some piece that they're able to
essentially
get more from you, if they want to
says you don't wanna convert around the facebook
page, but put them onto someone else.
But cultivate the brand the trusted relationship via
the page.
Okay so it's a good context
I don't know if you know my
story, what we do so we're known Sung Digital Strategy
and we built a seven figure, essentially a boutique
consulting firm and what I would do in your shoes
it sounds like your essential a startup. So what I would
do is. I would focus on you can test the road
where you lower the price to the same degree,
so there's two pathways. First path where you can take
you lower the price. You get some case studies
and specific industry that you're good at and get
solid results for them build some case studies
around there and once you have a case that you
turn them into creatives and assets that you can
use
to target your local area in the businesses
that are around there or in there. What's
beautiful about when you're doing in digital
marketing you're, not limited to specific
location, but you could start target a specific
place, start with that, building case studies that
you can target across the United States, which is
where I'm assuming you are
uh the second way is you can do it the way I did it.
Actually just focus on just
getting really really good at doing sales and
negotiations and learning all these different
resources don't do cold calling
positioning and building a brand around yourself
and then also at the same time get case studies, but it
once you get really good at sales and talking
with people. Then you'll be able to just sell
more than just a thousand dollars a month right
now to you maybe a thousand dollars a month is a
lot of money, but you can sell higher later on as
you develop
5000, 10000, 15000, 100000 a
month in terms of the the services that people
are gonna engage with you, but start from step one in
kind of build from there. A lot of the best way to
do it so I would give you three specific ways
strategies tactics, new for Sway is always
the case. Studies
second way is look at the relationships that you
have around the area.
If let's say you saw that your marking services
you can partner up with other agencies that you
can outsource to what we want. Your service or
little to you or your part of people that really
need your service if you want to go from there
the third way is get really really good at doing
sales and negotiation with people that's an on
going thing that you're gonna be training once
you get good. These three specific things that
you focus on cultivating as you grow
Then,
maybe one year maybe two years maybe the six
months down the road you'll be able to really
build up the confidence and build up the skills
develop the resources that you need to be able to
grow. The way agency that you are in right now, to the next level
There is a lot of people I
know, I've entrepreneur
colleagues that jumped into fidget spinners,
hoverboards
even the one where you open
the bags and put the air in and essentially it's
like the air sofa or something.
To jump into these different things, a lot of it
is you know the timing the first mover advantage
and you can make a lot of money But it's not a
I just saying, most of the time it's not
sustainable thing. Meaning that is something that's a
trend that comes up
and it's a trend that's gonna eventually die out
because there's so many people just like how
you're thinking about jumping into and there's
hundreds of other guys and gals thinking about
doing the same thing and so what is really the
differentiate for you when you jump into
doing for the spinners or anything else, you all sell fidget spinners
so looking at it from the target
audience's perspective. If there's one person
looking at multiple different things, you
essentially become a commodity
Right there's no difference between what you're
selling
and what the other person selling. It's the same
product so I think it's something that's not
really sustainable when you're looking into a
trend, now, if you're just getting into to make money,
make a few you know hundreds of thousands or
potential millions of dollars you got also look
at the risks and variables that are associate with
growing that.
I think, by now that you listen to me, this is
motivating you, since you going that direction.
But you know you can make some good short term
money from it. You can get a lot of skills and
a lot of knowledge, and then you can take
that and move it into more of a long term
sustainable business. I'm really all about the
long sustainable businesses that you build
because that something that will last you want
something that goes through through risk.
The economy, the finance and all these
different things so I would say to you that you
take the skills if you want to jump into it,
but take it and put it into something that's more
long term and sustainable and not something
that's gonna crash in the next day or two
Two things for you
So it sounds like
you're motivated by a loss and pain which a lot
of people are but most people don't want to if I
don't do this, this bad thing happens to me. so
two things I would do keep a very short, simple
first way is you put money on the line. You say
if I don't do this, then I'll have to pay you
this on this specific day, whatever you guys set
the criteria for the second thing is to really
make this enforceable you announce this publicly
on facebook, on youtube, on anything that you guys
are on or where your friends and family see or
your colleagues and you tell people like in public
and saying that I am mister X I'm going to
pay John in New York City city, a thousand dollars at
if I don't
get 10 clients by this date, let's say for
example, and then people will be able to look at
you and then the follow up with you. So everyone keep
me accountable for this, by this date. If I
haven't done it, I will send x amount of
dollars to them so
make it public that's the best way to make it.
You're gonna feel comfortable doing it, but
it sounds like you're motivated by the fear of
losing something so this could potentially be
something that you you could do and it's something
that doesn't motivate me specific cause I just do
it, but other people. You know a motivated by the
loss of something. Using money as the
leverage to get them to go forward on something
and keep each other accountable.
"How would you keep team Benson motivated?"
good question.
I think gonna put some some strict things. You
know down the road but right now just
kinda feel get a feel for you know what happened
that's a wrap! Alright!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét