[SOUND] >> [APPLAUSE]
>> When you hear that ring it can only
mean one thing.
It's The Real's Hotline Bling.
[MUSIC]
>> Here hearing from our Real representatives that we have a caller
on the line.
Caller, what's your name, where are you from?
Hi Loni! >> [APPLAUSE]
>> What's your name, sweetie, and
where are you from? >> Niesha, I'm from San Diego.
>> [APPLAUSE]
>> Yes!
>> I hear you need our advice on something
going on in your life.
What can we help you with? >> I recently broke up with my significant
other and we've been friends for five years prior to that.
And I wanted to know, when is the right time to know okay, you need to be friends
with them or you need to just let them go. >> You knew him for five years,
how long were you dating? >> Two.
>> So a total of seven years
y'all been together.
Like, knowing each other. >> No, five total,
sorry. >> Total.
>> Five total, okay.
>> How did he behave in the breakup?
Was he kind in the breakup, or was he nasty?
>> Very [INAUDIBLE] nonchalant.
>> Did you break up or
he broke up? >> I
broke up.
>> Yeah! >> Okay.
>> [APPLAUSE] [LAUGH]
>> Why?
>> Cuz he was nonchalant?
>> No there's other people involved.
>> Wait, you or him?
>> With him.
>> Okay, all right.
I think we've got enough. >> Wait, I need to picture him.
Was he skinny? >> [LAUGH]
>> He wasn't fat, Jeannie.
>> [LAUGH]
>> No, I'm playing with you.
You know what, to be honest with you, is it important to you?
Do you want to be friends with him?
Is that something you need right now? >> I would like him in my life and
I do see him in my future, definitely.
I know I'm still young and a lot of people say there's a lot of fish in the sea but
he was my first love and- >> See, I gotta say this.
I see emotional strings still attached. >> Yeah.
>> There's a little danger
I feel right there.
>> Amanda. >> What.
>> Yeah.
>> People who are supposed to be in your
life will make sure they're in your life. >> Yes.
>> [APPLAUSE]
>> That's it.
They'll treat you the way- >> I have a question,
there was another person involved? >> Yeah, he cheated on her.
>> Why do you want to be friends with
somebody who cheated on you? >> And when you- [CROSSTALK]
>> Because there's emotional strings
still attached- [CROSSTALK] >> Because that's her first and-
>> I know but you don't want,
you don't need to be friends with somebody who cheated on you, honey.
>> [APPLAUSE]
>> And can I say-
>> He showed himself already, believe him,
he showed you himself. >> I just want to add one more thing,
sometimes what we really want to do in being friends with somebody is make
ourselves feel like we didn't make a mistake by giving this person so
much time.
And so we think well maybe if we're friends then it can
rectify their wrongdoing.
And then that makes you feel better.
But you weren't wrong in the first place.
Like, you give people space to show you who they are.
And if they show you that they don't deserve that space you let it go.
>> [APPLAUSE]
For more infomation >> Can You Stay Friends with an Ex Who Cheated? - Duration: 3:24.-------------------------------------------
5 Lessons From Making A $7000 Web Series (Now On Amazon Prime) - Duration: 15:15.
Lance Parkin: Hi, I'm Lance Parkin, producer, director, co-writer and co-star
of Theo & The Professor. And this is Matt. Matt Schultz: Hi I'm the co-star and co-writer see the professor
and this is Jeff. Jeffrey Smee: Hey I'm the director of photography and the editor David
professor and also this is Ruthy. Ruthy Draper: I'm the producer and then after in Theo and
the professor and finally this is Dominique. Dominique Kirchell: Hi I'm Dominique the lead makeup artist and
creature designer on theater professor and this is our Film Courage video 5
things we learned making our low-budget webseries be our CEO and House cute
first what is the other professor guys it's our web series and what else about
it the professor is like a monster of the
week horror comedy it draws from a lot of like 1970s where I play a professor
at college and Lance plays a graduate student but the secret is that's just
the cover job they really hunt monsters and ghosts and fun stuff like that
squeaky stuff sometimes something's funny stuff that's the magic and now it
is available where we're gonna fight it guys he was on problem Amazon Prime yep
but we're here to talk about how we made it and challenges we had and to help you
guys not make the mistakes that we made along the way
yeah anyway that's point of the show let's get to the you know the but the
bones let's get down to breasts it's he's not a breast tax
first before you go into making anything you should take some time to build the
playground before you dive right in to playing it right guys
yes yeah I think what I understand we talked a lot of people were trying to
put together webseries I think they just think I'm just going to do it and then
it's gonna happen which is not how it works I think so like it's yeah it's
good to have that kind of drive but you have to have the pre-production planning
in place too or else it's going to crash and burn I think it's really important
especially if you're going to do really character driven kind of shows that you
want to have the characters really really drawn out and understood to the
point where even put them in any sort of situation and understand exactly how
they would have had and interact with which is where we really felt the
characters that we created had gotten to we didn't play the whole series out from
the start but we're definitely ready for we're going to do with once despair we
had a plan yeah I would say like every department has groundwork from the
pre-production you know perspective like from rehearsing to writing to I mean
what were some of the preparations you have to do donate for a makeup like
wooden stuff that has to be done weeks and weeks of shooting you have to our
life cast people taking the time to cover someone's face and like goop and
stuff and they don't ding like a prosthetic takes like a few weeks and
then you have to mold it and then you have to bake it and yeah I think we
didn't notify Dominic months in advance for a monster every time those important
isn't we stuck to our plan yeah and they premiered right on time even if it
almost killed us so yeah that's tip number one yeah build the playground
before you claim it what was - let's take it number two
money isn't everything we realized I would say part of the way through the
production because we were so amps that we had raised the money to be gotten
from the Kickstarter but when he started to film we realized how quickly that
money can go by quickly expended food for the crew food for the crew food for
the crew through the debris helping people with
gas money to travel mm-hmm makeup makeup I mean if we're like makeup stuff a lot
of our budget went so that just because makeup is expensive but I mean it's a
fine way to like cut costs on that like just using household items to like cut
costs and they actually look like I think they look good to make monster
gloves just use like rubber dishwashing gloves and cotton and latex necessity is
like the mother of invention and having those having the budgetary restraints
you know I think really forced us to like leverage a lot of that creativity
whether it was problem-solving on the set you know just using whatever we had
around us if you really got to reach back for favors because you make a lot
of friends I mean it's calling in favors from landlords they used to have you get
in those houses there in those houses and call my old school teachers from art
school ten years ago whatever your budget is whether it's a hundred dollars
or a hundred thousand stretch it in like consent when you say money isn't
everything it's true like you just need to make sure you can spending your money
wisely according to what the actual most expensive things you're going to need
are and I actually think that even though we did have you know a limited
budget and grand scheme of things I think that it you know we were able to
transform that really strengthen it doesn't that it doesn't look like a
$7,000 show I think yeah looks a little bit I think it's whatever that that was
because a lot of ingenuity wouldn't do it I think a little creativity goes a
long way mm-hmm yeah okay
alright number three is a fun positive environment creates a fun positive
product and this comes down to like balance I guess because if you're having
too much fun you're not going to get anything done but if you're in this
strict environment where nobody can have any fun
they're not gonna produce as good a product because they just aren't having
fun they don't want to do it they might leave you get nothing especially on
these low budgets where people aren't being paid they're getting paid in food
and credits not pay people and did not expect them to be part of the band and
have their own creative differences and their own creative input and yeah yeah
we made sure that everybody working on the show knew that their piece belonged
to them and they can look at it and make a watch the show and they know that like
that's my work that's a piece of me on there you know and I think that's what
actually made the show so good is that everybody was so committed to it because
they owned it you know everyone knew a little bit also candy candy is important
candy crunchy crunchy M&Ms are always good for my fruit snacks
yeah keep morale high with French M&Ms and fruit snacks that's that's the thing
we didn't mention it your team should be informed it should be empowered and they
should be fed if nothing else what they should be fed and fed well ask them what
they want to eat don't just you know you can just go along or you get a bunch of
stuff but it's nice if you dream every day not pizza every day
fourth and very importantly in my opinion as the producer is to remember
that a finished product is better than a perfect product so you might as well get
started and get something out there that you can be proud of because you can
always reshoot it if it's not great the first time you do it we certainly had to
reshoot a few things oh yeah so many crews and just people in general
have these lofty ideas and they need to make it perfect they need to wait until
they have a better camera to shoot it because it's not going to be as good on
the camera they have or you know they need to get a big budget because they
need this special effect but then it what happens if you do that if you have
that mentality it just never gets done because there's always going to be a
nicer camera to get or a crazier special effect that you'll replace the other one
with or whatever just take the resources you have and make something no matter
how bad it might be get a finished product and then leave it there move on
to the next thing and you'll make the next one better and then people will be
watching that last thing and maybe you meet some people because they see that
or you know and they'll see you progressing and you'll get a bigger
budget or you know more resources for the next project and you can build up to
those lofty ideas you had for the first one but you'll never get there just
trying to make the leap yeah improvising and just dealing with what nature gives
you sometimes you know sometimes the world conspires to just give you a lot
of lemons and you got to find a way to make it work yeah we talked a lot about
how much you have to plant but there's a whole other half of that where you
should have a good plan but you should be ready to abandon that plan really
different at any moment let's notice our first episode the level 2 was a mess it
was our first shoot we ever tried to film makeup tests then we went out again
to try to shoot it it was a clear night 0% chance of rain and then a monsoon
showed up the last that was about 40 miles why we rescheduled a year later it
was another clear weekend then it rained the night before the
night before all day I seen her siphoning mud out of a pit with my mouth
yeah siphon dirty mud why it was supposed to it was a warm weekend the
weekend before it was like in the 70s but it got into the high 30s that even
it was the colder lower than that yeah well we were so we started freezing and
we were probably like a quarter of the way done with the shooting yeah probably
yeah this is a great case for improvising so uh quick-thinking
prevailed I thought long and hard I realized that you were got had a
warehouse we were near an additional area so I thought why don't we just have
a chaise wake up and chase us into a warehouse and we'll just shoot it six
months six months I'm going back to that first point about having you know a
fully built sandbox if you're creative enough and you have that world you can
rewrite your way out of any problem yeah deeper and that's where you need the
planning to be able to do the improvisation Hey enjoy this one okay
number five when you're done you're not done there's always more to do post
production marketing that kind of thing yeah all kinds of stuff shoot the show
is only half the battle I'd say yeah we don't name in half but the show is done
in a shot and you finished it you can pat yourself on the back I know I for
one took about two months of my entire life off because that was insane
whatever was done but you know you got to get back on the horse because there's
a lot more work to go if you want to make anything of that product you know
as we speak where were entered in a web series festival that we will hopefully
we'll be getting into we're going to a horror convention in Moritz couple Comic
Cons merchandise we're trying to promote the show and like we've been done
filming it since August 17 yeah premiered here at the Oaks in September
one thing you gotta be prepared for you're gonna you make this make this
product that you and much people close to you and your friends and your team
before their heart said to you all love it but not everyone's gonna love it and
you should prepare yourselves for the less than Pleasant reviews that are
gonna come your way and they came not no no like it's probably a it is a minority
of them yeah but they're there you know made for one it wins find it with the
show for nitwits Biden that's it which I think it's fantastic yeah that's one of
the best things you give us a community look good as a favor with that one
thanks pearl it's impossible to make something especially a piece of
entertainment there's a genre fiction like this it's not it's just not gonna
be for everyone so people are going to come across it who you know don't you
just don't like it it's not for them you know they have radically different
opinions than you do or actually gonna happen or that they just don't
appreciate how low-budget this was they see like they call the movies and we're
on Amazon like maybe not next to them but in the same arena as them
and we have less than 1% of the budget that those things have like they spend
they're like spent more yardage on the craft services on one day on that movie
or television show yeah yeah and people appreciate yeah I don't think they see
it's on Amazon I'm like well I should expect this is legit it is legit but
it's they don't run is that we put ourselves on it so that you will stay
the course if you have to love it or not to love it during the editing to love it
during the marketing to love it during the good and bad reviews like you got
it's got to be something that you want to really see into the future if you're
getting out to enough people that some of them hate it like it's not a bad
thing it means it surpassed your immediate circle of fresh your response
you know jokes on them cuz they watch it
and that's it so five things we learned for making our low-budget webseries
remember number one build the playground before you play in it
number two money isn't everything number three a fun positive environment makes
for a fun positive product number four don't be afraid to improvise because
none is better than perfect number five when you're done you're not done that's
it so yeah that's our video five things we learned while making a little budget
web series thanks film courage for letting us make this and post it on
their site and yeah I guess that's all we got right yeah and if you want to
check out this show that we've been talking so much about you can see me on
the professor on Amazon it can rent buy or if you mem is on prime you just watch
it for free and that's it everyone see you later thanks for joining us I
guess we're gonna have to get out of here thanks
-------------------------------------------
Jordan Peterson's Truth - Debunked - Duration: 16:52.
So let me begin by saying that I entirely appreciate why so many venerate and idolize
Jordan Peterson, as he's obviously an intelligent and insightful man, whose defence of free
speech and biological facts has been truly admirable.
In fact, it's precisely for these reasons that he has my respect.
However, unlike many of his critics, who caveat their criticisms by first making clear that
they're very fond of the man, I won't… because I'm not.
To be blunt, while I recognize Peterson's intellect and charisma, I'm convinced that
he's one of the most overrated public intellectuals of our time, and that this is especially the
case when it comes to his views on religion.
In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jordan Peterson is the Deepak Chopra of Christianity,
and within the following few videos I intend to explain precisely why.
Of course, I'd prefer to address all of his religious views in just one session, but
given my current situation I unfortunately can't justify doing this, but, as just indicted,
what I can justify is creating a series of videos which each address a pillar of his
beliefs, and then later compile them all together.
And so, with that said, where better to begin than with epistemology 101?
This, is Jordan Peterson's Truth – Debunked.
On the 9th of November, 2015, in an interview with Transliminal, Peterson had the following
to say on the topic of truth: "So, now, then you have to ask yourself, well, how do you
determine whether or not a theory is true?
Then you ask yourself, well, what do you mean by true?
Well then you're in trouble!
Okay, because, I think you can take a Newtonian perspective on that, or a Darwinian perspective,
but you can't do both at the same time…"
Okay, so I'm going to interject quite a lot within this video, but it's only to
simplify and adequately address what's being said.
So far, Peterson has claimed that there's two perspectives on truth, the first is what
he calls Newtonian, which he later defines as strictly materialistic "Truth as defined
by the axioms of materi… of the materialist philosophy", and the second is what he calls
Darwinian, which he later defines as that which permits survival "sufficient truth
is the truth that allows you to survive and reproduce, and from a Darwinian perspective,
there isn't any truth past that".
But there's immediately several problems here… and not the least of which is that
he's committing a Black and White fallacy.
He's falsely asserting that there's only two perspectives of truth, when in fact there's
many more, including the most-subscribed to, which is realism.
Realists, like me, and probably you, hold that reality exists with or without our viewing
it – that is, that a falling tree makes a sound with or without our being there to
hear it, but we don't assert that reality is strictly materialist.
And a second problem that's worth emphasizing at this point is that while Peterson's definition
of truth can be seen as Darwinian, it does not represent Darwin's view, and so when
Peterson says or implies that it does "And that's basically Darwin's claim", know
that he's putting words never spoken into Darwin's mouth.
Anyhow, here's Peterson fleshing out his perspective of truth (which, courtesy of Bret
Weinstein, is now known as 'metaphorical truth').
"So Nietzsche said 'truth serves life', okay, in some sense that's a Darwinian idea
– okay?
If it's true enough so that you act it out or hold it, that increases your chances of
survival and reproduction over long spans of time.
That's true."
And here's him putting it more clearly to Sam Harris while on Harris' podcast: "The
fundamental axiom that I'm playing with is something that was basically explained
by Nietzsche, and it's a definition of truth – and so I would say, if it doesn't serve
life it's not true."
Now while this definition is needlessly confusing, it's not inherently flawed – if Peterson
and his ilk want to call that which serves life (or that which increases human flourishing)
'true' then that's fine… again, it's confusing, because it means, for example,
that if the fact that atoms store potential energy should one day prove fatal to us, then
while this fact will remain true in the colloquial / realist sense of the word, it will all of
a sudden become false in the Peterson sense of the word…
But what's not fine, is to insist, as Peterson does, that should a fact become false according
to the Peterson definition of truth then it will also become false according to the realist
definition of truth.
Or in other words, that metaphorical truth supersedes literal truth; "It sounds like
what you're saying is that truth is as much about action as it is about some sort of material,
measurable, objective reality.
No I'm saying it's more about action!
Oh yes, yes, the fundamentals of truth are those that guide action, and then the objective
science is nested inside that, it has to be!
There's no way around that!"
There's only one way you can define truth in relationship to finite beings - it's true
enough.
True enough for what?
True enough so that you survive and reproduce.
That's it.
You don't get to go any further than that.
What's more true than that?
Sorry, can't ask that question.
That's it.
You've hit the limit – and that's basically Darwin's claim."
And to provide just one more example, here's him putting it another way, but this time
as a response to an excellent criticism from Weinstein: "So my point was, essentially,
that there is something called metaphorical truth and that it's a real thing, so I was…
I'm in agreement with you on that, where we might be in disagreement is that there's
simultaneously a thing that I would call literal truth, or scientific truth (and by the way
I'm not saying that what scientists say is in this category inherently – scientists
can be wrong).
But the point is truth that is scientifically verifiable, that makes predictions, has a
special priority in this hierarchy because it is the one objective version.
It is not contingent on being nested in another… series, of, of beliefs, so—" "What if
it's a scientific truth that's metaphorically wrong?"
"Oh, and there are—" "Like, I can give you an example.
Okay, so, I read this… the memoirs of a KGB scientist, KGB agent, who worked with
the Russians in this erh… biochemical lab and their job was to meld, erh, Ebola was
smallpox, cause smallpox is…
Ebola's not that contagious, so that's kind of annoying if you're trying to kill
people, whereas smallpox – but it's really fatal!
Whereas smallpox is really contagious, so if you can get the two together and then develop
an aerosol spray you could kill a lot of people, and in fact they did kill about 500 Russians
by mistake when some of what they were doing escaped.
But it isn't obvious to me that that's an invalid scientific pursuit… but I do
think that it's an invalid ethical pursuit, and so that seems to indicate that the ethical
pursuit supersedes the scientific pursuit with regards to truth claim."
Now just before I crackdown on Peterson's assertion, and in the anticipation of being
accused of not understanding his position, I want to make something extremely clear.
I entirely understand and accept that our perception of facts and reality (that is,
our perception of realist truth) is subject to natural selection (or metaphorical truth),
and so if Peterson's assertion was merely that this fact prevents us from having access
to raw realist truth, then I'd have no objection, but he's not merely asserting this – he's
asserting that scientific, objective, realist, literal truth is outright the product of metaphorical,
Peterson truth: "The fundamentals of truth are those that guide action, and then the
objective science is nested inside that […] The ethical pursuit supersedes the scientific
pursuit with regards to truth claim."
So, what exactly is wrong with Peterson's assertion?
Why doesn't metaphorical truth supersede literal truth?
Well, first and foremost: "It doesn't supersede with respect to the truth claim,
it supersedes with respect to considerations of behaviour and policy."
Secondly, though more importantly, it violates the law of non-contradiction…
To borrow an example from Weinstein, the concepts of heaven and reincarnation can both be considered
metaphorically true, because they both increase our chances of survival due them encouraging
us to cooperate and behave… but the problem is that they can't both be true – they're
mutually exclusive.
One claims that when we die we'll rise up to cloudsville to be reunited with our loved
ones, while the other claims we'll manifest a new body and start anew… or as Weinstein
puts it: What I'm arguing is that what makes the scientific truth hierarchically superior
is that it explains all the subordinate truths in a way that is logically consistent, whereas
if you were to prioritize heaven as a truth then would have to say that well reincarnation
is false, or you would have to have them all simultaneously be true in some irreconcilable
way, and so the only one that has the special characteristic of accounting for all the others
is the scientific truth.
And thirdly, though perhaps even more importantly, Peterson is conflating our perception of reality
with reality itself – the map with the place, as it were.
Peterson is asserting that because our ability to perceive facts and reality is nested in
Peterson truth, therefore facts and reality is nested in Peterson truth… which is akin
to me asserting that because you're currently perceiving me in two dimensions, I am two
dimensions…
Or to put it another way, Peterson is asserting that because we can only perceive objective
facts subjectively, therefore there are no objective facts… but that's not how it
works, and it's not what all of the evidence indicates.
To quote Harris, "You clearly have to have a conception of facts and truth that is possible
to know, that exceeds what anyone currently knows, and exceeds any concern about whether
it is useful or compatible with your own survival even, to know these truths."
Anyhow, after explaining this to Peterson over seven times, Harris, in fair frustration,
delivered the following elegant bombshell: "Now, the claim, about whether or not she's
cheating on you, is an intelligible claim […].That's a claim that has absolutely nothing
to do with whether or not you wind up killing yourself based on your reaction to this unhappy
truth.
If you then end up killing yourself we could say at the end of the day it would've been
better if he hadn't known that; it certainly would've been better if she hadn't done
that; it would've been better if he had married a different woman – surely we would
want to say that--" "It might have been better if he would've paid attention to
his damn marriage, and to attribute the—" "Sure!"
"To attribute the cause of his demise to the existence of the photographs... this is
why I brought up Josh Greene, is that investigations into this kind of morality always frame it
in such a way--" "Jordan... Jordan, you have to grant one thing here – there's one
piece that doesn't get moved here.
You cannot move the piece that because you killed yourself it's not true that she was
having an affair – that move is not open to you, and yet you're acting like it is!"
Now, in my opinion, this application of the Reductio Ad Absurdum technique annihilates
Peterson's assertion.
It's simple.
If one was to commit suicide because their partner was cheating on them, the act of suicide
wouldn't make their partner's cheating on them untrue in the realist sense.
Sure, it would make it untrue in a Peterson sense, but it wouldn't in the realist – period.
If a tree falls and nobody hears it, it still makes a sound… it still omits vibrations…
Now with Peterson's definition of truth thoroughly addressed, I want to ask a potent
question…
why does Peterson want to nest not only our perception of realist truth, but realist truth
itself within Peterson truth?
Is it perhaps possible that he has a motive?
Well, I'm convinced that he does…
You see, this slight of hand comes in extremely useful to apologists such as Peterson, because
when he's asked a question to which he has a justifiable answer, such as 'Is it true
that there are only two sexes?', he can, and does, answer according to the realist
definition of truth, but when he's asked a question to which he doesn't have a justifiable
answer, such as 'Is it true that a literal historical man called Jesus resurrected?',
he answers according to the Peterson definition of truth (which, considering his animosity
for postmodernism, is ironically postmodern).
To borrow a phrase from Harris, this is how you play tennis without the net, and it's
so disingenuous that I can't help but conclude that Peterson is doing it on purpose.
That he's being deliberately obtuse in order to preserve beliefs that he knows damn well
are false.
Now if you're not already convinced of this then perhaps the follow clip will change your
mind: "Quick question – are you a Christian?"
"I suppose the most straight-forward answer to that is yes, although…
I think it's, it's… let's leave it at yes."
"Well...
I'm a bit dissatisfied by that because there are so many kinds of Christians and I-- I
would never imagine that you were a very literal minded Christian."
"Well, there are truths other than the literal, that are perhaps more truthful than the literal
truths.
There are many kinds of truth, and I don't mean that in a...
I don't mean that in a post-modern way, actually.
But the truths that govern behavior and the truths that emerge from facts are not the
same truths."
"Do you believe Jesus rose again from the dead…
literally?"
"I find it...
I cannot answer that question... and the reason is because... okay, let me think about it...
and see if I can come up with a reasonable answer to that.
Well, the first answer would be that it depends on what
you mean by Jesus."
"A historical human being that existed--" "In a body?
In a body?"
"Yes."
"And it was a physical body and it was on earth?"
"Yes."
"It was on earth and was literally, um, was literally, um, er, came back to life…
after death."
"I would say that at the moment I'm agnostic about that issue - which is a lot different
to saying I don't believe that it happened."
You see, once someone corners Peterson by forcing him to answer religious questions
according to the realist definition of truth (that is, the definition that he uses in every
other domain of discourse), his religious views are exposed for what they are… unjustified
nonsense.
It seems to me that the reason Peterson insists on his definition of truth is because it renders
everything we confidently know – all facts, all knowledge, as ultimately unknown, because
at any moment, however unlikely, they may lead to our demise and thus become untrue
in the Peterson sense, and therefore, as he insists, also untrue in the realist sense…
To put it bluntly, redefining 'truth' in order to avoid an inconvenient truth is
as dishonest as it gets.
Intelligent and sceptical people don't accept such utter nonsense from New Age Spirituality,
and so neither should they accept it from New Age Christianity.
Peterson is no doubt a very smart, knowledgeable and insightful person, but when it comes to
religion he's no better than any other apologist.
He manipulates language, misrepresents philosophy and science, and is fallacious in his reasoning.
This video alone doesn't prove this outright, of course, but it does make a good start,
and I'll be sure to follow it up.
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my wonderful
patrons and those who've donated via PayPal.
Your support is what allows me to create videos such as this.
Anyhow, I'm going to leave you another lucid bombshell from Mr. Rationality himself: It
seems to me that a realistic conception of what's going on there, and really the only
sane one, if you look long enough at it, is that our language didn't put the energy
in the atom – it's not because we spoke a certain way about it, that that determined
the character of physical reality, no, physical reality has a character whether or not there
are apes around to talk about it.
-------------------------------------------
কখনো হার না মেনে চলতে থাকুন || Student motivational video || success motivational video in bangla - Duration: 3:52.
For more infomation >> কখনো হার না মেনে চলতে থাকুন || Student motivational video || success motivational video in bangla - Duration: 3:52. -------------------------------------------
Building a GIANT Adirondack Chair - Duration: 4:49.
hey guys thanks for watching. it's that time of the year and spring is on the way /
time to build yourself some Adirondack chairs, probably some normal-sized ones
though I have plans for those available on my website I'll link those down below
this chair you just saw me build was a 2 time scale version of the original
this chair was featured in my hundred thousand subscribers celebration video
skit thing so in case you missed that I'll be sure to link that as well and I
officially want to welcome ISO Tunes to the Jackman Works family these here are
my ISO tunes Pro you've been paying attention for about the last year I've
been wearing these every day that I've been in my shop I got rid of the big
headset that was just super uncomfortable and always got in the way
so these have a 10 hour battery life they connect via bluetooth and there's
no wires getting in so they're a lot safer it doesn't get caught on anything
both of those things are a big deal especially the battery life. It was a huge
qualification before ditching the ear muffs and go to something
battery-powered but these will last a long extended day in the shop now with that
being said I talked ISO tunes into giving all of my viewers a special $10
off coupon for every item on their website but you definitely gonna want to
go check that link out I'm gonna drop the coupon code below it'll work on
every single item that you buy and I don't know if there's an expiration date
but it doesn't matter cuz you're gonna want to get these headphones in your
shop like yesterday but I think that's it thank you for watching and I'll see
you next time
-------------------------------------------
Chicken theft suspects say they were rescuing them from 'horrific conditions' - Duration: 1:44.
For more infomation >> Chicken theft suspects say they were rescuing them from 'horrific conditions' - Duration: 1:44. -------------------------------------------
Students return to Edgewood Highland Elementary - Duration: 2:31.
For more infomation >> Students return to Edgewood Highland Elementary - Duration: 2:31. -------------------------------------------
Car crashes in neighborhood - Duration: 0:53.
For more infomation >> Car crashes in neighborhood - Duration: 0:53. -------------------------------------------
Rob's 6pm Full Weather Forecast - Duration: 4:38.
For more infomation >> Rob's 6pm Full Weather Forecast - Duration: 4:38. -------------------------------------------
Motociclista manejaba desnudo y en contravía | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 0:37.
For more infomation >> Motociclista manejaba desnudo y en contravía | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 0:37. -------------------------------------------
Case Closed: Sexual Battery Investigation Against Miami Beach Comm'r - Duration: 0:51.
For more infomation >> Case Closed: Sexual Battery Investigation Against Miami Beach Comm'r - Duration: 0:51. -------------------------------------------
'Racist' anthrax threat made against royal family - Duration: 2:50.
For more infomation >> 'Racist' anthrax threat made against royal family - Duration: 2:50. -------------------------------------------
PBS NewsHour full episode February 26, 2018 - Duration: 54:38.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Good evening. I'm Hari Sreenivasan. Judy Woodruff is away.
On the "NewsHour" tonight:
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: We will turn our grief into action. We have
to have action.
HARI SREENIVASAN: President Trump puts pressure on Congress for gun reform in the wake of
the Florida school shooting.
Then: Power Grab. China's Communist Party moves to abolish term limits, allowing President
Xi Jinping to stay in office for life.
And Somalia struggles to its feet. A surge in U.S. military presence pushes the militant
group Al-Shabaab out of the East African nation, but not without complications.
JANE FERGUSON: The U.S. military's involvement in the war here in Somalia happens in the
shadows. That has some people worried here about accountability.
HARI SREENIVASAN: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
HARI SREENIVASAN: From President Trump today, more talk of gun control in America and of
crossing the NRA. He spoke amid calls for action at the federal and state levels, in
the wake of the school shooting in Florida.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: And we're going to do very strong background
checks. If we see a sicko, I don't want him having a gun.
HARI SREENIVASAN: It was another listening session of sorts, this time President Trump
with the nation's governors. He called again for banning bump stocks, even if it means
breaking with the National Rifle Association.
DONALD TRUMP: Don't worry about the NRA. They're on our side. You guys, half of you are so
afraid of the NRA. There's nothing to be afraid of. And you know what? If they're not with
you, we have to fight them every once in a while. That's OK.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The president also returned to the idea of arming trained teachers in
schools. But Washington State's Democratic Governor Jay Inslee challenged him.
GOV. JAY INSLEE (D), Washington: I have listened to the people who would be affected by that.
I have listened to the biology teachers, and they don't want to do that at any percentage.
I have listened to the first grade teachers that don't want to be pistol-packing teachers.
So I just suggest we need a little less tweeting here and a little more listening, and let's
just take that off the table and move forward.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Several other governors, including Texas Republican Greg Abbott, spoke
in favor of having armed people on school campuses.
This as the gavel echoed in Congress for the first time in 10 days. West Virginia Democratic
Senator Joe Manchin appealed to Republicans to help pass something.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D), West Virginia: But it would be the president weighing in that would
give them the comfort zone, I would think, the Republicans, in order for them to support
something that's reasonable.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Lawmakers face a host of proposals. They include fixes to the instant
criminal background system and raising the purchase age for long guns. But it's not clear
if anything can pass.
On Sunday, Republican Congressman Brian Mast of Florida, a longtime NRA member, called
for a temporary ban on assault rifles. He spoke alongside Democratic Counterpart Ted
Deutch.
REP. BRIAN MAST (R), Florida: We can get the president on board and members of Congress
on board to say, let's put that same kind of pause on board right now, where we look
at who is having access, what do they have access to.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The NRA's Dana Loesch said her organization doesn't back any ban.
DANA LOESCH, Spokeswoman, National Rifle Association: We're talking about banning firearms. And
the discussion is about banning all semiautomatic firearms. And that's really the discussion.
Can we actually look at what could have prevented this? That firearm didn't walk itself into
the school.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The NRA also faces an economic backlash.
Starkey Hearing Technologies is the latest organization to drop its discount program
for NRA members. That makes nearly 20 companies who've cut ties with the group since the Florida
shootings. The Broward County Sheriff's Department Faces its own backlash, amid reports that
several deputies waited outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland as 17 people
were killed.
President Trump raised it again today.
DONALD TRUMP: You don't know until you're tested, but I think I -- I really believe
I would run in there even if I didn't have a weapon, and I think most of the people in
this room would have done that, too, because I know most of you. But they way they performed
was really a disgrace.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Deputy Scot Peterson, who was assigned to the school, seen here on archival
footage, said through his attorney today that the allegations of cowardice are patently
untrue.
SCOTT ISRAEL, Broward County, Florida, Sheriff: Of course I won't resign.
HARI SREENIVASAN: And Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Sunday he will not step
down, despite criticism of his deputies and reports that his department ignored warnings
about accused gunman Nikolas Cruz.
But Florida Governor Rick Scott has asked for a state investigation.
Meanwhile, a Parkland survivor, Maddy Wilford, spoke out. She lived, despite being shot three
times, and had a presidential visit at the hospital. Today, she thanked those who saved
her life.
MADELEINE WILFORD, Parkland Shooting Survivor: And I would just like to say that I'm so grateful
to be here, and it wouldn't be possible without those officers and first-responders and these
amazing doctors.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Doctors say she still has bullet fragments in her body and is lucky
to be alive.
Yesterday, thousands of students and parents returned to Douglas High to gather their belongings.
STUDENT: It's not like you're going back just to see your friends. You're going back to
see people that are traumatized for the rest of their lives.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The school is set to officially reopen on Wednesday.
We will take a closer look at the leader of the NRA in Florida after the news summary.
In the day's other news: The U.S. Supreme Court heard a pivotal case for more than five
million Americans 24 states who are members of public sector unions. At issue, whether
workers who are not union members should be required to pay dues to cover the cost of
collective bargaining.
Outside the court, the two sides argued about whether the ultimate decision will jeopardize
unions or free speech.
MARK JANUS, Attorney: Collective bargaining has its place, but let the individual worker
choose what they want to do. Don't force them to do something that they may disagree with
or they may not want to be involved in.
DAVID FREDERICK, Attorney: Their purpose is clearly to hurt unions and it is to give government
free rein to act in an authoritarian way with respect to the workplace, to set wages, terms
and conditions without input from workers.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Separately, the court declined to hear the Trump administration's appeal
to end the DACA program as of March 5. The policy protects immigrants brought to the
U.S. illegally as children. Lower courts have blocked the president's attempt to abolish
the program. He had wanted the Supreme Court to intervene, without waiting for a federal
appeals court to rule.
In Syria, a government air assault intensified outside Damascus, despite the U.N. Security
Council's call for a 30-day cease-fire. U.N. officials reported at least 30 people killed
in the last 48 hours and more than 500 in the last week.
Today, rescue workers in Eastern Ghouta pulled injured from the rubble. Local health officials
say some were victims of a chemical attack.
And in Geneva, the U.N. secretary-general demanded action.
ANTONIO GUTERRES, United Nations Secretary-General: Eastern Ghouta cannot wait. It is high time
to stop this hell on earth. And I remind all parties of their absolute obligation under
international humanitarian and human rights law to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure
at all times.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Later, Moscow announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin has
ordered a daily five-hour humanitarian pause in the attacks. Russia has been a key military
ally of Syria.
Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged all sides in Syria to honor
a cease-fire in Eastern Ghouta, but he insisted it doesn't apply to Turkey's assault on Syria's
Afrin region, where it's targeting U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters.
President Trump suggested today he would be open to talks with North Korea. It came a
day after Pyongyang said it is ready for such talks. The Trump administration has said the
North must first be ready to give up its nuclear and missile programs.
Today, at a meeting with governors, the president said talks are possible under the right conditions.
DONALD TRUMP: Talking about tremendous potential loss of lives, numbers that nobody's ever
contemplated, never thought of. So they want to talk, first time. They want to talk. And
we will see what happens. That's my attitude. We will see what happens. But something has
to be done.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The president also lauded China for doing more to rein in North Korea,
but he called out Russia for -- quote -- "behaving badly."
An arctic storm paralyzed parts of Europe today with record cold. The frigid front blew
out of Siberia with driving snow and the lowest temperatures of the season. Several inches
of snow even reached Rome, a rarity, that closed schools, disrupted flights and covered
roads. Elsewhere, blizzard conditions dumped five feet of snow in the Balkans.
Back in this country, the company co-founded by Harvey Weinstein said it will file for
federal bankruptcy protection, after talks to sell the studio fell apart. Weinstein was
fired as chairman after he was accused of sexual harassment and abuse by dozens of women.
He denies the allegations.
The Trump Organization says it has donated its hotel profits from business with foreign
governments to the U.S. Treasury. The company said today it includes profits from all of
last year. It wouldn't say exactly how much that was. Watchdog groups said the lack of
any details leaves key ethics questions unanswered.
And on Wall Street, stocks surged as interest rates backed down a bit from the four-year
highs they set last week. The Dow Jones industrial average gained nearly 400 points to close
at 25709. The Nasdaq rose 84 points, and the S&P 500 picked up 32.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": how the NRA shaped Florida's gun laws; president for life?
-- China moves to eliminate it's president's term limits; American troops fighting alongside
Somali forces in a battle against terror; and much more.
In the final weeks of Florida's legislative session, several proposals regarding guns
are on the table.
Republican Governor Rick Scott has said he now backs raising the age to purchase a firearm
from 18 to 21. State legislators are considering a law that would require a new three-day waiting
period for the purchase of firearms. But will these changes pass?
The NRA has been a powerful voice in that state. The latest issue of "The New Yorker"
focuses on the NRA's past successes in Florida and the lobbyist behind it, ®MD-BO¯Marion
Hammer. She represents the NRA there and is a past national president of the gun rights
group. And she was in Tallahassee today arguing against a bump stock ban during a legislative
committee meeting.
Mike Spies is a staff writer for The Trace. The piece appears in "The New Yorker."
He joins me now.
Mike Spies, why ascribe so much power to this one woman? Tell us a little about her accomplishments.
MIKE SPIES, The Trace: Well, she's been around for nearly four decades in the Florida legislator
-- or in Tallahassee, rather.
And she has accomplished some truly amazing things, things that have actually transformed
not just Florida, but also the country. Beginning in the 1980s, she helped pass -- she was responsible
for pushing through, rather, the country's first concealed carry law, which effectively
allows people to carry concealed handguns in public if they can satisfy a very basic
criteria to get a permit.
And that law has been replicated virtually in every state in some form. So, before that,
it was more or less -- it was very rare for someone to be able to carry a concealed weapon
in public. And now it's essentially been normalized.
There are 1.8 million of those concealed carry permit holders in Florida alone, by far the
most in the country. And going forward, her other major accomplishments include the creation
and then of course enactment of stand your ground, which was in 2005.
People are familiar with that law because there was a lot of controversy surrounding
it in 2012 after Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman's arrest
was delayed as a result of the law.
The law itself also figured in the jury instructions in Zimmerman's trial. Stand your ground is
sort of like the defining self-defense law in the country. The most important thing is
that is sort of established this idea that you could engage in almost preemptive self-defense.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Through public records requests, you looked at thousands of e-mails. What was
the kind of influence that she and by extension the NRA had in the legislative process in
Florida?
MIKE SPIES: She sort of -- in every part of the process, she has a hand.
She ultimately oversees the development of legislation. She often creates it with her
NRA lawyers and then shepherds it through the legislature. And that means there are
government staffers who help make sure that language in bills accords with the Constitution
and stuff like that.
And she's working directly with the staffers as if she were a lawmaker, which, of course,
she's not. She's a lobbyist. But what winds up happening is that legislators ultimately
abdicate their responsibilities to her, so she effectively acts as if she were a legislator,
though she's more powerful than they are, and then does things like, you know, as the
piece detail, sets up her own bill signing ceremonies once a bill gets to desk of the
governor.
HARI SREENIVASAN: There's a quote in your article that you have.
It says, "If you're a governor and you have won by a handful of votes and you have got
great political ambitions, you are going to take Marion's call in the middle of the night.
And if she needs something, you do it. And if you don't think you can do it, you try
anyway."
Given that the Florida leadership has been in the hands of one party at least for the
last 20 years and the influence of the NRA, as you report, has been fairly strong, what's
the likelihood that something changes, if it didn't change after Trayvon Martin, if
it didn't change after the Orlando Pulse shooting?
MIKE SPIES: It seems like this is a very -- I mean, this is a very rare moment and I sort
of think we're in uncharted territory right now.
To be clear, what's being proposed right now, raising the age limit on buying assault -- or
rifles from 18 to 21, expanding the three-day waiting period for all gun purchases made
at private dealers, these are still really modest proposals, despite the fact that the
NRA opposes them.
What happened recently, when there was a proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida, for instance,
that doesn't go anywhere. That's not even a -- that's just a nonstarter.
In this case, it seems like there's wide Republican support, not just with Rick Scott, but just
sort of across the chamber -- across the legislature in both chambers. And I think, in this case,
there is some cover in numbers.
®MD-BO¯Marion is very good at punishing people and getting retribution against those
who violate her position. But, in this case, you can't really punish everyone, if everyone's
going to go along with the proposals.
So, it's not really -- there is just not really any precedent for this. That said, it still
doesn't mean that she's not going to be able to strip those provisions out of the bill
or get at least one of them stripped out of the bill before it arrives on Governor Scott's
desk.
HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, for the record, we also reached out to ®MD-BO¯Marion Hammer
as a program, and we have not heard back yet. And she didn't cooperate in this profile that
you wrote about her.
Mike Spies of Trace, in collaboration with "The New Yorker," thanks so much for joining
us.
MIKE SPIES: Thanks so much for having me.
HARI SREENIVASAN: China's ruling Communist Party proposed Sunday to remove term limits
on the office of president. That means Xi Jinping, who heads the party and the military,
may never have to leave office.
As William Brangham tells us now, it sets Xi up to be the most powerful leader of China
since Mao Zedong.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The surprise proposal to amend China's constitution would eliminate
the current limit of two terms for China's presidents. That limit was designed to avoid
a cult of personality developing, similar what grew around Mao Zedong, the founder of
the modern Chinese state.
With us now to unpack what this means for China, the U.S., and the wider world is Christopher
Johnson. He served as a top China analyst at the CIA, and he's now the Freeman chair
in China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think
tank.
Welcome.
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Center for Strategic and International Studies: Thanks. Glad to
be here.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: How significant a move is this in China?
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: I think it's very significant.
Basically, what we see here is an upending of 30 years of practice in the Chinese system
and overturning really the legacy of Deng Xiaoping, the last great paramount leader,
who really was in charge, as you pointed out, of deconstructing the dangerous setup that
happened under Mao Zedong.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You were saying earlier that this move confirms some of the worst
fears we have about Xi. What are those worst fears? What could we see with this?
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: I think it confirms a lot of worst fears of a lot of people in the
system, which were that he is a power-mad megalomaniac like Mao and in fact is not the
pragmatist that he has often sort of been portrayed as.
I actually think the jury is still out on that and we will have to see. The key question
really, of course, is, he has got all the power now, so what is he going to do with
it? And there's really two choices. On the economy, for example, he can take on the tough
reforms and make the economy more open, or he can move toward the status model that we
have seen increasingly under his leadership, which has been a real problem, especially
in trade relations with the United States.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You said the jury is still out. What do you think? Which direction do
you think? Will we see more liberal, so-called liberal reformists, or the opposite?
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: My own sense is, in this case, probably the past will be prologue,
and the last five years that we have seen, which has been towards a more repressive state-oriented
system, will be the direction of travel.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you think the U.S. is ready and able to handle a surging China economically,
politically?
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: I think we certainly have the tools.
One of the things that's interesting, for example, right now, we're about to enter some
dicey territory with the Chinese on trade. I think there is a general view in the administration,
which I would agree with, that we have a lot of leverage in this.
But we also have to understand, what is it that we want from China out of this in terms
of making a more free trade and fair environment for us? I'm not sure we have a plan and a
strategy for that. So, the real story here is, it's very clear with Xi Jinping's latest
move here that he's going to be around for a while. He has a plan. We need to get a plan.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We tend to think of China as a one-party state, but there are some people
who are not Xi acolytes in China.
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: That's true.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do those people have the interest and/or the authority to challenge
any of this?
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: What has been striking about it actually is really since he came
into power and started attacking a lot of the people who actually put him in power,
I think there was a general sense, for those us who have watched the system for a long
time, this is going to create an immune response of some sort.
I think really what we have seen instead is through what I call political shock and awe,
he has so outmaneuvered these people in the system that there is really nothing they can
do about it. And we don't really see any visible signs of opposition. And probably the key
area where we see this is his taming of the military, which, of course, in the past has
been sort of a tool within the system for changing leaderships.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Taming of the military, meaning they are now completely responsive
just to him and not independent on their own?
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: They largely seem to be.
Historically, the role in the military in the system has been both to defend China,
but also to defend the party and keep it in power, as we saw during the Tiananmen crackdown
in 1989. And, therefore, they have always been a political actor within the system.
Through a vigorous anti-corruption campaign and changes to their force structure, he's
really brought them under his control.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: A lot of the talk about Xi is his desire to return China to its greatness
of the past.
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: Correct.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the 21st century, what does that mean today? What does China's return
to greatness mean today?
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: I think, first and foremost, it's returning China to a power, a position
of hegemony in Asia. And whatever broader global power aspirations, we will have to
see.
But it's really also increasingly under Xi Jinping's leadership a desire to show China
has indeed discovered what we might call a third way between communism and capitalism,
a state-led capitalist system that actually works for them and delivers results.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Chris Johnson, thank you very much.
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: Thank you. Nice to be here.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Stay with us.
Coming up on the "NewsHour": what's in the Democratic memo and what it means for the
Russia investigation; and the female director behind the hit TV drama "Homeland."
But first: The last time most Americans thought of the East African nation of Somalia was
a quarter-century ago, when U.S. troops died fighting in the capital, Mogadishu.
Now, after years of civil war and upheaval, the country is struggling to its feet. And
the U.S. is back in Somalia, with boots on the ground and drones in the skies. Just last
week, the U.S. launched more airstrikes against the Islamist militant group Al-Shabaab. The
group struck Mogadishu Friday night with suicide bombers and gunmen. More than 40 people died
in that attack.
As special correspondent Jane Ferguson and videographer Alessandro Pavone found, the
U.S. and African partner nations are helping Somali forces fight that insurgency on a very
complex battlefield.
JANE FERGUSON: The soldiers patrolling this dangerous road are a long way from home. They
are Ugandans, stationed here in Malia as part of an African Union peacekeeping force.
They search for bombs planted by fighters from Al-Shabaab, Somalia's powerful Islamist
militant group. Allied with al-Qaida, Al-Shabaab gunmen have enjoyed a freedom here few armed
groups have had anywhere in the world, ruling over swathes of this country for years, attacking
the central government's security forces, and even making videos to celebrate their
attacks.
The African Union troops have been here for 12 years, and aren't alone in this fight.
They work alongside the Somali national army, local militias, and, increasingly, Americans.
The U.S. military began conducting drone strikes and Special Forces raids here under the Obama
administration.
Since President Trump entered the White House, the drone strikes have more than doubled from
14 in 2016 to at least 34 in 2017. Last November, U.S. boots on the ground officially increased
from 50 to 500. American commanders say they want to prevent Somalia from becoming a hub
for other groups like ISIS.
In May 2017, U.S. Navy SEAL Kyle Milliken was killed during an operation against Al-Shabaab.
His was the first U.S. military death in Somalia since the Black Hawk Down incident in 1993,
where 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in clashes with local fighters.
It is believed that at least hundreds of Somalis died also that day.
MAN: We have seen them personally in area around June. And there were some Special Forces
moving their vehicle. And these strikes, we could hear, even beyond across the river where
we are not present. We could hear bombs during the day, during at night.
JANE FERGUSON: Do you feel in the field here that American drone strikes targeting their
leadership, Special Forces operations, does that help weaken them? Have you seen a difference?
MAN: Absolutely. And that is what has caused a lot of fear in them these days, because
at times we could hear the drones moving around, and we hear bombs.
JANE FERGUSON: That fear has forced Al-Shabaab from an active army into shadow, from controlling
towns and cities into an insurgency, hiding in rural areas.
ABDIRAHMAN OMAR OSMAN, Somali Minister of Information: And now every time they move
one place to another, they believe that we are doing an airstrike, so they are more cautious.
JANE FERGUSON: Somalia's information minister says his government has watched its enemy
weaken under U.S. military pressure.
ABDIRAHMAN OMAR OSMAN: We fully appreciate the support that we get from the Americans
in that. Otherwise, we wouldn't have enjoyed the peace that we are enjoying in Mogadishu.
JANE FERGUSON: Because you think that the drone strikes have them on the run?
ABDIRAHMAN OMAR OSMAN: Absolutely, not only on the run, but also to believe that they
cannot hide anymore.
JANE FERGUSON: The capital city, Mogadishu, for decades synonymous with war, is starting
to know peace again. On patrol with African Union soldiers, the danger of an ambush or
a hidden roadside bomb is always there, but so too are surreal moments of calm.
Stopping to get out of our armored vehicles, we found a park. No guns allowed here, just
bird song and families enjoying the cooler winter weather, and these teenagers hanging
out. Everyone we spoke with said they feel safe.
"There are no problems here, the situation is very good," 19-year-old Najma told me.
Down the road at Lido Beach, we found joyful scenes, and Somalis eager to chat with us.
Life seems to have improved here?
MAN: Yes, a lot. It's like the risk is minimized and the Somali security apparatus can do their
part.
JANE FERGUSON: You are confident in that?
MAN: Yes, yes. We are confident in that.
JANE FERGUSON: Although security has improved for Somalis in the capital, Al-Shabaab are
still able to strike weaker, softer targets through suicide bombings.
In October last year, a truck bomb killed over 500 civilians in Mogadishu. It was one
of the deadliest terrorist bombings anywhere ever. Despite this, everyone we spoke with
in the city said life is much less dangerous than it has been in years.
The newfound security is welcome here, even though some question the methods used to provide
it. The U.S. military's involvement in the war here in Somalia happens in the shadows.
Drone strikes and Special Forces operations take place inside Al-Shabaab territory. That
has some people worried here about accountability.
ABDIRIZAQ OMAR MOHAMED, Former Somali Internal Security Minister: The government officials
do not have access to assess the damage and so on and so forth. So, it's -- the public
is not aware of the collateral damage.
JANE FERGUSON: Until last year, Abdirizaq Omar Mohamed was Somalia's internal security
minister. He suspects that civilian deaths in drone strikes are being kept a secret.
ABDIRIZAQ OMAR MOHAMED: Basically, we have to believe what the Americans tell us, that
they have shot and killed Al-Shabaab leaders. So that's where we are.
JANE FERGUSON: Concern is also growing over how the U.S. decides who to hit with each
attack. In taking on Al-Shabaab, the U.S. military is targeting a dangerous militant
organization. The social landscape within which that fight takes place, however, is
extremely complicated, and avoiding getting involved in local armed disputes and rivalries
very important.
Somalia's conflict is not simply a matter of Al-Shabaab vs. the government. At the same
time, there are many clans, Somalia's version of tribes, fighting each other all across
the country.
In Somalia, even farmers carry guns to protect their property, so American forces need local
informants to identify who is Al-Shabaab and who is not. In August of last year, a joint
U.S. Special Forces and Somali forces raid on the town of Bariire killed 10 people.
Outraged family members took these pictures, insisting the victims were just farmers, including
young boys. Clan leader from the area Abdal Ilmi Hassan spoke with the "NewsHour" about
the incident. He says a rival clan trying to push them off their land lied to the American
Special Forces, telling them his people were Al-Shabaab.
ABDAL ILMI HASSAN, Clan Leader (through translator): Some clan men called U.S. and said, "We used
the Americans against you and will use them again, so leave the area."
JANE FERGUSON: The U.S. military in Africa wouldn't speak to the "NewsHour" on camera,
but have insisted the men and boys killed that day were enemy combatants.
The bitterness left behind is clear.
ABDAL ILMI HASSAN (through translator): The Americans came here to support the people,
but the people ended up hating them because of that misinformation. I wish they would
be more careful about any information they are given. They shouldn't be drawn into a
conflict among clans.
I honestly don't think the Americans have any interest in killing any clan or civilians,
but the wrong information being given to them causes this.
JANE FERGUSON: Somalia's future depends on reconciling the warring clans. Since the government
collapsed in 1991, fighting between them has made building a functioning state near impossible.
The current government is often ineffective as a result of infighting amongst the clans.
It's those divisions that Al-Shabaab feeds off. We met with this defector from the group,
who said the weaker clans are more likely to join with Al-Shabaab while there is no
peace.
MAN (through translator): The minority clans are oppressed by the main clans. Their properties
are taken and there is no justice for them. These people join voluntarily to get justice.
Al-Shabaab are the only people who can give them that.
JANE FERGUSON: It's a cycle that has been going on here for decades. The lack of a state
means people often turn to armed groups for protection, strengthening the militants, which
makes building any state with the power to enforce law and order all the more difficult.
Every night in Mogadishu now, African Union troops supervise the Somali police at checkpoints,
looking out for Al-Shabaab bombs and fighters slipping into the city under darkness. These
soldiers won't be here forever. They are planning to leave in 2020 and have already started
a slow drawdown.
When they are gone, the weak Somali forces will be left to face Al-Shabaab by themselves,
with only their American partners fighting with them.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jane Ferguson in Mogadishu, Somalia.
HARI SREENIVASAN: We turn now to part two of the fight over a controversial and once
classified memo.
Earlier this month, House Intelligence chairman Devin Nunes released a Republican memo about
the handling of one piece of the Russia investigation.
Over the weekend, Democrats served up their own version of the document.
Lisa Desjardins takes a closer look.
LISA DESJARDINS: This memo, 10 pages long and partially redacted, rebuts a key claim
made by the previous one, that federal law enforcement abused its powers when it sought
so-called FISA wiretaps on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in late 2016.
In a weekend tweet, the president called this latest memo, prepared by the top Democrat
on House intelligence, Representative Adam Schiff, a total political and legal bust.
What is exactly?
Let's talk to Jamil Jaffer. He was senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee
from 2011 to 2013, also served at the Justice Department's National Security Division during
the George W. Bush administration.
Thank you.
There's much to say and a lot of frenzy here, but let's cut to sort of the main point. The
original memo charged that the FBI and DOJ put a hand on the scale early on in this Russia
investigation by not disclosing that one of their key sources had political motivation.
What did this new Democratic memo add to that?
JAMIL JAFFER, Former Senior Counsel, House Intelligence Committee: Well, I think it's
pretty clear now that the Justice Department did in fact disclose to the court that there
were political motivations behind the Steele dossier. Right?
And the only question now is, did they use the words Hillary Clinton and Democratic campaign?
The answer to that is no, but they didn't do that in part because they were redacting
out the names of U.S. persons and U.S. entities.
And so should they have said more? Hard to know. But I think that is what the debate
is about now. We now know that in fact they did tell the court that there were political
motivations behind it.
LISA DESJARDINS: So, let's unpack that a little bit.
The Steele dossier, many of our views may know, because it has sort of some scintillating
information alleged against the president. Some of that has been debunked. And that information
originally was gathered by a conservative funding source.
Later, Democrats paid for that. It ended up in the FBI's hands. And you're saying is,
this memo today tells us that while the FBI did disclose there was a political motivation,
but not exactly who it came from?
JAMIL JAFFER: Exactly.
And it says -- what it says is that people who want to discredit campaign one, the Trump
campaign, were gathering this information, right, and that they had paid the source for
this information. So, you know, from the context, it's fairly clear. I mean, the court could
easily assume who was paying for this.
But they weren't exactly transparent about that exact point as to which campaign it was
and who was involved. The Republican memo suggests they should have been. The Democratic
memo says, well, they told the court enough.
Now the American people now have an honest sort of debate between the two about who's
got it right here.
LISA DESJARDINS: Can you help us understand then what's normal procedure?
You have been on both sides, the oversight side and the filing application side. Is it
normal to just say there was someone who was politically motivated, we're not saying from
which party, involved here, or is it more the common procedure to say Democrats were
doing this or Republicans were doing this?
JAMIL JAFFER: Well, it varies, when it comes to FISAs. Right?
What you want to do is, you want to give the court enough information about the context
and about the information so the court can judge, is this reliable information on which
to depend when it's making its decision about whether to grant the court order and whether
there's probable cause to believe that Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power.
Now, at the same time, depending on which side of that debate you fall on, you might
want to give the court more or less information. The goal is to give the court as much information
as it needs to make its judgment.
Here, they were clear about the political motivations behind the memo. They were not
clear specifically about which side. And that's partly because they take efforts to protect
the privacy of U.S. persons involved and they typically redact out U.S. persons' names and
put in U.S. person one or U.S. entity one. That's not unusual.
LISA DESJARDINS: Let's take a bigger step back also at this overall investigation.
Does today's memo shed any light on what we know about Russian meddling and whether there
were any contacts or any collusion between Russians and U.S. officials, including the
Trump campaign or the Trump White House? Do we learn anything more? Is this just a tempest
in a teapot?
JAMIL JAFFER: So, I think, in a lot of ways, what we know now about Carter Page is that
Carter Page, there were a lot of reasons to surveil him, right, beyond the dossier.
LISA DESJARDINS: Just a reminder, he was at one point, for a few months, a foreign policy
adviser to the Trump campaign.
JAMIL JAFFER: That's right.
Of course, this FISA took place after he had left the campaign already and was disassociated
with the campaign. But there were good reasons to surveil Carter Page.
Now, ultimately, it looks like that investigation hasn't come to anything. But there were good
reasons at the time to do that. That all being said, what we did know about the larger context
is in fact there was a Russian effort to influence our elections.
It's actually an effort that continues today to influence our trust in our system. Right?
And this partisan infighting about Carter Page in the memos is actually really playing
into the Russians' hands in a lot of ways. And it's something that we as a country need
to think about and come together and say, look, this is a very real threat by a foreign
nation state. We need to respond to that, and respond aggressively.
LISA DESJARDINS: People trying to pay attention to this investigation, what would you recommend?
What matters and what is distraction?
JAMIL JAFFER: Yes.
I think what matters here is, if you believe there was a problem at the FBI or there were
issues going on, what's the evidence of that? And if it's there, let's figure out how to
fix that.
But let's not get caught up in this back and forth about Republicans, Democrats, right,
this whole thing, this fight between Schiff and Nunes on one hand. And really what you
need to focus on is, was there a problem and was there political influence here? If there
was, let's fix it.
If there wasn't -- but this doesn't bespeak a larger problem with the FISA process, because,
ultimately, that process has worked pretty well and is very effective at combating threats
to our national security. We need to focus on that. And there is today a very real threat
to our national security . And that is a Russian effort to influence our body politic, which
is a real problem.
LISA DESJARDINS: Jamil Jaffer, you have seen that process from the halls of Congress and
from the Department of Justice.
Thank you for joining us.
JAMIL JAFFER: Thanks for having me.
LISA DESJARDINS: And imagine this, national, important issues rife with political divide.
Oh, it must be time for Politics Monday.
Hello, Tamara Keith, of course, from NPR and Amy Walter of The Cook Political Reporter.
Thank you very much.
We just heard a lot, of course, about Russia, but let's go back to the top topic of the
show tonight, and that's guns.
Tamara Keith, things seem to be moving fast in terms of coverage and rhetoric. Democrats
on Capitol Hill are now saying this kind of bill that they were perhaps going to support,
that now they say it's too watered-down, that it just supports the current background checks.
They want more.
What can happen, do you think, on guns in Congress?
TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: It's a very good question and it's one that we
don't fully have the answer to yet.
There does seem to be some coalescing on the Republican side around something related to
school safety, but it's not clear what that would be exactly, and this smaller, more narrow
Fix NICS bill is what it's called, which basically just requires state, local, federal agencies
to put people into the background check system, as they are currently required to do, gives
some incentives for that.
That had been a problem in the Texas shooting, that church shooting several months ago.
LISA DESJARDINS: Amy, in the midst of all this, as Congress -- and we see Republicans
and Democrats returning to town -- I think I can hear their planes landing behind me
at Washington National Airport.
President Trump has actually done something different this time. He's gotten out in front.
He's said more than Republican leaders in Congress on this issue so far, initially indicating
in a tweet last week he wanted an age limit. Now it's not as clear, today back and forth
on the NRA.
What does President Trump want and how does that matter?
AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Exactly. What the president wants is really unclear,
because, as we have seen on almost any major issue that has gone in front of Congress,
whether it's health care or the DACA issue, or now on guns, the president takes multiple
positions in Twitter, in front of the press, privately to members of Congress, privately
to governors, and then it leaves folks on Capitol Hill, especially Republican allies
on Capitol Hill, really wondering what the marching orders are.
What are we supposed to advocate for? Because we don't quite know where the president is.
And I think that Tam is exactly right. What's clear that's happening on Capitol Hill right
now is Democrats feel really emboldened by the energy and enthusiasm from more gun control
folks, you know, people who are really energized and engaged in a way they haven't seen before.
There is a new polling out showing a new energy on this issue. People like Chuck Schumer,
the minority leader, think, we need to go father. We don't have to just get half-a-loaf,
we can get the full loaf.
Meanwhile, there are a whole bunch of Republicans who say, oh, no, no, no, no, this goes much,
much too far. That's never going to fly in our red states. It's not just as much just
that the NRA is popular, but the issue of guns in red states even among Democrats is
still one that's very important.
So I think you're going to see that getting something that's a compromise once again become
very difficult.
TAMARA KEITH: Here's a thought experiment. This is an election year. November 2018, all
of these Republican congresspeople are going to be up for reelection. They're going to
run on the tax bill that they passed last year.
Are they also going to say, and we went up against the NRA, we went further than the
NRA had wanted us to go and further than, you know, our voters wanted us to go, and
we did all of this stuff on gun control?
It's hard to imagine Republican elected officials running on gun control.
LISA DESJARDINS: But it is easy to imagine, I think, some Democrats running on that.
TAMARA KEITH: Yes.
LISA DESJARDINS: And I kind of want to get beyond the politics here. It feels like a
very us vs. them momentum is building. Almost reminds me in some ways of the abortion debate,
the passion, the energy, but also the really sharp divide.
You wrote a great piece last week, Amy, saying it's not just about the NRA. Can you take
us a little deeper on what's going on here, what the motivations are?
AMY WALTER: Yes.
I think there's a cultural issue here. As you pointed out, about, I think, is a good
opposite of that, as you could think about it. We talk so much about the NRA when we
talk about guns. We spend not as much time the;looking about people who either are gun
owners, may not be part of the NRA, or people who live in areas or who are a part of a cohort
who believe that guns are fundamental to their safety and their sense of freedom.
It's a core value set to them. And I think when it gets into this debate about the Florida
is manipulating people, the NRA is all-powerful and is controlling the legislative agenda,
it misses the fact that there are real people out there who hold these views, that are very
passionate about these views.
And, in fact, the challenge for gun rights folks for a long time has been that the intensity
on gun issues has been decidedly toward the -- I'm sorry -- has been on the gun rights
side, not on the gun control side, almost by a 2-1 margin.
Pew found a few years ago when asking people who own guns, people who don't own guns, have
you ever contacted an official and talked about this issue specifically, 21 percent
of gun owners said yes. Only 12 percent of non-gun owners said yes.
What the real question is, when it comes to the political piece, is that number going
to change because of what we saw in Florida?
LISA DESJARDINS: All this is happening in, oh, an election year. Right?
And, Tamara Keith, you just came back from a bright blue state, California, Fresno, where
something very interesting happened to the state's longest serving Democratic official,
Dianne Feinstein.
Her Democratic Party over the weekend voted not to endorse her. Why is that? Do we read
anything more into this?
TAMARA KEITH: And it wasn't that they voted not to endorse her. It's that they couldn't
coalesce behind a candidate.
She has a challenger in the primary, Kevin de Leon, who is also a Democrat. And he got
more support than she did from the state party at their state party convention. He didn't
get the 60 percent that he needed to get the endorsement.
But Dianne Feinstein has long had this issue in California where she has been seen more
moderate than her very bright blue liberal state. And that energy is reflected in the
activists that are part of the state Democratic Party.
AMY WALTER: Yes.
LISA DESJARDINS: Got it.
And, Amy, I want ask you quickly. Democrats say they're targeting 100 seats. Is that realistic?
Is it risky? Or is maybe a sign of a pulse? What is that?
AMY WALTER: I think what they're showing you is that they have intensity and they want
to take advantage of that.
Intensity is a very terrible thing to waste. And Democrats have it in fund-raising, they
have it in candidate recruitment, and they're seeing it in the polls. So why not spread
it as far and wide? They're not going to win all those districts. They're probably not
going to be able to invest in a lot of those districts.
But you might get a surprise or two. Only need 24 seats.
(CROSSTALK)
AMY WALTER: Right. It's easier to get 24 seats out of 100 than trying to win 24 out of 40
seats.
LISA DESJARDINS: You can miss when you shoot 100 and you need only 24.
AMY WALTER: Correct. All right.
LISA DESJARDINS: All right, very good.
Amy Walter of The Cook Political Reporter, Tamara Keith of NPR, thank you both very much.
AMY WALTER: You're very welcome.
TAMARA KEITH: You're welcome.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Finally tonight, we continue our occasional series about women helping
to bring equity and change to the workplace in this time of MeToo and TimesUp.
Jeffrey Brown paid a visit to the set of a veteran director who's been hard at work at
this for years.
JEFFREY BROWN: At a cemetery in Richmond, Virginia, actors Claire Danes and Mandy Patinkin
shoot a scene at a funeral.
We can't tell you who's died this time. You will have to wait until later in this seventh
season of the acclaimed Showtime series "Homeland."
Behind the scenes, Lesli Linka Glatter, one of television's most respected and prolific
directors, who knows what it takes to do the job well.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER, Producer/Director: Certainly, tenacity.
JEFFREY BROWN: Tenacity.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Yes. It only takes one person to say...
JEFFREY BROWN: Which means don't give up.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Don't give up, no matter how difficult it is. And wear comfortable
shoes. That's very important.
JEFFREY BROWN: Tenacity, one, comfortable shoes, two.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Yes.
And don't pretend to know something you don't, because you will get caught, someone will
know, and then you won't learn. And learn everyone's name on the first day of shooting.
JEFFREY BROWN: It's a philosophy that's taken Linka Glatter, now 64, to the top of her profession,
directing more than 100 hours of TV, including such shows as "E.R.," "The West Wing," "Mad
Men," as well as "Homeland," where she also serves as an executive producer.
The show, created and led by Alex Gansa, has been shot on locations around the world, as
CIA agent Carrie Mathison, played by Danes, battles terrorists in the Middle East and
Europe and, these days, dark forces within the American government.
This season, much of the action is set in Washington, D.C.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Welcome to our Situation Room.
JEFFREY BROWN: But the shooting is being done in nearby Richmond, indoors in a large warehouse
transformed into the White House and other government settings.
Once again, "Homeland"'s plot has a ripped-from-the-headlines feel.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: We're in a very divided, unstable world.
JEFFREY BROWN: Imagine that.
(LAUGHTER)
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: I know.
JEFFREY BROWN: And we have a president of the United States.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Yes, a president at odds with her intelligence community, in a world
that's kind of a post-truth world.
JEFFREY BROWN: But for Linka Glatter, there's another pressing issue of the moment in her
own field, for, while she's made it as a director, too many other women have not had the opportunity.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: I started directing a while ago. And if you would have asked me,
would we be discussing, I would have said, absolutely not, Jeff. No way. This will be
a nonissue, nothing to discuss.
And the fact that we are still having to talk about that is very surprising to me.
JEFFREY BROWN: She points to a survey by the Directors Guild of America showing just 21
percent of TV episodes in 2016-'17 season were directed by women.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: I don't think anyone is sitting in an office and twirling a moustache
and going, oh.
JEFFREY BROWN: No women.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: No women. Let's not hire the women.
I think it's deeper than that. I think it's, you know, in that land of unconscious bias,
where women are still all lumped together. And I have had it said to me, you know, we
hired a woman once, and it didn't work.
JEFFREY BROWN: You have literally had that said to you?
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Oh, yes, multiple times.
JEFFREY BROWN: You think about arguments you might hear, like a lack of qualified women.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Yes. That's so not true.
JEFFREY BROWN: That's not true.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Absolutely not.
JEFFREY BROWN: But you still hear that?
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: You still hear that, because it's easy. The handful of women that
are working all the time, OK, yes, they're qualified because they work all the time.
But there are so many women who are definitely qualified that are not. So, it's just not
an equal playing field yet. It comes up often that a young director, a male director, will
do a small indie film, and the next movie they're doing is a huge studio...
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFREY BROWN: Right, million, multimillion.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Yes, a $100 million movie.
That has not happened for women. It would be said, oh, she doesn't have enough experience.
But, somehow, a man has enough experience.
JEFFREY BROWN: Who is in charge, she says, also directly connects to the sexual misconduct
issues that have come to the fore.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Honestly, I don't know any woman that hasn't been put, and myself
included, in some sort of position where you can't quite believe this is happening.
Now, there are levels to that. Whether you're talking about sexual harassment or, you know,
hostile work environment, you know, there are degrees of all of that. But I think it's
coming out because it's been unspoken. And the need to speak and feel that it's OK to
finally speak is hug.
And no one should ever be in a position where they're, you know, harassed or abused. It
should never happen. And you shouldn't create an environment where that can happen.
JEFFREY BROWN: Back at the cemetery, Mandy Patinkin, who plays veteran CIA operative
Saul Berenson, spoke of working with Linka Glatter.
MANDY PATINKIN, Actor: Lesli wants as much input from the people that are there. And,
in my opinion, that's a smart director, because that's a collaborative effort, it's a collaborative
game. And you're being foolish not to ask the other people what they feel, what they
would do, and to listen, and to be ruthless in terms of making sure that they are telling
the story.
JEFFREY BROWN: Why do you think there are so few women directors, still?
MANDY PATINKIN: I think there are so few women directors because the world has been run by
men, and the world isn't doing so well. The world is certainly not doing very well now.
JEFFREY BROWN: During a break at another site, Claire Danes shared her experience.
CLAIRE DANES, Actress: Our show is surprisingly diverse, and in no small part because of Lesli's
involvement. She really makes it a priority to hire people who are not sufficiently represented.
So we have more female directors than most productions. But, still, it's not enough.
JEFFREY BROWN: Has that been true for you in your career or is something you notice?
CLAIRE DANES: Yes. I mean, it's impossible not to. But I think that is starting to change.
It's a powerful phenomenon that's occurring right now, and it seems to be having a real
impact.
JEFFREY BROWN: Linka Glatter credits her rise in large part to the support she got from
powerful male mentors, including Steven Spielberg, for whom she worked during his 1980s TV series
"Amazing Stories."
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: My first day of shooting on that, "Amazing Stories," I ended up doing
three of them, so it was my film school on every level.
There were 200 guys storming a beach in World War II with 12 cameras. So, is that a gender
thing? I don't know. It was a filmmaking thing. It was a story thing.
JEFFREY BROWN: She's made it her business to mentor women ever since, having them shadow
her while she works.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: That's thrilling to me.
JEFFREY BROWN: Many, she says, now with strong careers themselves.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: I should also say, Jeff, I was told when I first started doing this
by other women, you know, why are you doing this? You're going to make it harder for yourself.
JEFFREY BROWN: Really?
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: Yes. Yes. And, again, remember, I started...
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFREY BROWN: You mean as in, like, rocking the boat, or just...
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: No, not rocking the boat, just like there's only room for one of us,
and it better be me.
JEFFREY BROWN: Oh.
LESLI LINKA GLATTER: And if you are bringing all these women in, it's going to affect your
career.
And I can tell you categorically that has never happened. It certainly didn't, by helping
other women direct, never hurt me as a director. I'm still here, you know, tough old broad.
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFREY BROWN: Now, she's involved in a new push aimed at gender parity, working with
NBC Entertainment on the Female Forward initiative.
Beginning in the fall, 10 women will shadow directors on an NBC series, and then direct
at least one episode themselves.
"Homeland," of course, also features strong women in front of the camera, including Elizabeth
Marvel playing the president, as well as Danes.
While the show continues to explore the shadowy world of secret intelligence, while Glatter
and others aim for more women in positions of power in their world.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown on the set of "Homeland" in Richmond, Virginia.
HARI SREENIVASAN: And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight. I'm Hari Sreenivasan.
Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank
you. See you soon.
-------------------------------------------
International Music Festivals Pledge to Achieve Gender Equality - Duration: 1:02.
For more infomation >> International Music Festivals Pledge to Achieve Gender Equality - Duration: 1:02. -------------------------------------------
Bus maker for ART may owe city $800K for delivery delay - Duration: 2:04.
For more infomation >> Bus maker for ART may owe city $800K for delivery delay - Duration: 2:04. -------------------------------------------
Fazilet & Her Daughters Episode 36 Hazan's kidnapping (Eng Subs) | Hazan & Yağız Scenes 6/6 - Duration: 8:05.
For more infomation >> Fazilet & Her Daughters Episode 36 Hazan's kidnapping (Eng Subs) | Hazan & Yağız Scenes 6/6 - Duration: 8:05. -------------------------------------------
Question 7 - Hon Paul Goldsmith to the Minister of Employment - Duration: 3:32.
For more infomation >> Question 7 - Hon Paul Goldsmith to the Minister of Employment - Duration: 3:32. -------------------------------------------
New details released after driver crashes into Walmart barriers - Duration: 1:35.
For more infomation >> New details released after driver crashes into Walmart barriers - Duration: 1:35. -------------------------------------------
[Trọn bộ] Anh được gặp em - Truyện ngôn tình hay về cuộc sống hằng ngày | Huệ Trần 3S - Duration: 3:15:07.
For more infomation >> [Trọn bộ] Anh được gặp em - Truyện ngôn tình hay về cuộc sống hằng ngày | Huệ Trần 3S - Duration: 3:15:07. -------------------------------------------
Dior Sauvage Eau de Parfum Fragrance Review 2018 - Duration: 5:19.
All hail the beard it's your boy Big Beard B and we're back for another edition of Big Beard
Business! In today's video we're discussing the latest release from the
House of Dior and we're talking about Dior Sauvage Eau de Parfum.
So how do you introduce the fragrance that needs no introduction? How do you
hype a fragrance that needs no hype? I mean, I say you don't I'm just gonna do my
review and let the chips fall where they will; so as you guys are aware Dior
recently release its follow-up to its 2015 breakthrough fragrance Dior
Sauvage. You know they came out with that EDP instead of that EDT, so for that EDP
formulation Dior went for something BIGGER, they went for something BETTER,
they want for something BADDER, they went for something STRONGER, but is that
what we really got? Let's go ahead and check it out.
Alright guys so here is your box, your presentation, it comes in this little
weird stand it's not really needed. It calls out that it's new, its just a waste.
You don't need that and this is the box it's sauvage, do you know what sauvage means?
It means wild, it means beastly, it means phuck the box, it means phuck you Dior, that's what it means.
Alright guys so as you are aware, the presentation on Dior Sauvage Eau de Parfum is pretty similiar
to the original which is fine. I mean main differences here is you have
the Eau de Parfum written on the front there to call out that it's the Eau de Parfum
because otherwise, you won't know no damn difference. As with the original
fragrance you still get that ambroxan base and I can still detect them lemon
and bergamot in this one as well. I mean I can still detect the spiciness when
that pepper is there but on the Eau de Parfum concentration this one is an
insy tinsy weensy bit more refined. I mean I still get those woody nuances, I
still get that zesty, woody undertone here, with those marine accords. I mean
this one may still have some ambergris in it and it's pretty similar to the original
if you ask me. I mean I guess you are asking me because you clicked on the video to
get my take on it. Now here are my actual thoughts on this one if I did not tell
you that I was wearing the EDP concentration I don't think you would be
able to just walk up to me and say hey he's not wearing EDT he's wearing EDP. I
mean if you really spent some time with this fragrance you can start to notice
some subtle differences between the Eau de Toilette and the Eau de Parfum, but I
don't really think that's what most of you guys out there are looking for. Look
I mean this may not be a shocker to you guys based on the thumbnail but here on
my thoughts. Do not buy Dior Sauvage Eau de Parfum and why is that might you ask?
Before you get all crazy out there and slaughter me down in the comments here
are my personal thoughts. This is a good fragrance but it does not separate
itself enough from the original to me to warrant a separate purchase.
I mean it's slightly more refined but not enough to say "Hey! look at me I'm
here!" It's not wild enough. Now I have my personal feelings about the original
Dior Sauvage the Eau de Toilette concentration but my personal thing is
if you enjoy the ambroxan notes in here and you like this type of fragrance
then you just need to go to the original. I mean save yourself the couple of bucks
their original is a solid compliment getter. It performs well, I mean at least in
my experience with the fragrance performed well. Now for the people that I
had tried this fragrance no one thought it was exciting and additionally no one
liked it enough to say hey this is something that I would you know
compliment someone on or actually go out and purchase myself, which in my
opinion is atypical from the original. Now I did say that this one smells similar
to the original but is just different enough to not get the same compliments
to not perform just the same enough to not scream and say look at me! I am a
savage! If you had this one or the original I really don't think there's a
time or a place where it wouldn't work. Is it a good fragrance?
Yes, I mean does it perform, yes but I personally believe that if you again
are looking for a fragrance that has that ambroxan note, if you're a fan of
Dior and you want something that savage, something that's wild, something that is
untamed, then you might want to go with the original over this one just my
personal thoughts and opinions. I believe that if you have to choose one I would
go with the EDT over the EDP. I think on a scale of one to 10 that I'm going to
give this one a 7. I think it's solid, just like the original is solid, but I
think the original is a tad bit better, which is why I don't believe you should
buy the Eau de Parfum. Am I tripping? I mean is this one groundbreaking, is it
revolutionary is this one a must-have in your fragrance collection. If so comment
below and let me know. I'm your boy Big Beard B. Don't forget to Like, Comment
Subscribe. Tell a friend to tell a friend, that we are back again. If you're savage
not this ol refined thing, if you're a wild savage then hit the got-damn bell.
-------------------------------------------
Lunes de la 2ª semana de Cuaresma – 26 de febrero de 2018 – Ciclo B - Duration: 2:23:48.
For more infomation >> Lunes de la 2ª semana de Cuaresma – 26 de febrero de 2018 – Ciclo B - Duration: 2:23:48. -------------------------------------------
Col. Wilkerson: Trump's N. Korea Diplomacy Absurd - Duration: 15:39.
It's The Real News Network.
I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore.
Contradictory signals are emerging in the conflict over North Korea's nuclear weapons
program.
On the one hand, the Trump administration announced tough new sanctions against North
Korea.
These sanctions target 28 ships from China and seven other countries.
These ships are said to have been transporting commercial goods to North Korea, and Treasury
Secretary Steve Mnuchin made the announcement about the sanctions last Friday.
Today, the Treasury Department is announcing the largest set of sanctions ever imposed
in connection with North Korea.
This action targets the deceptive shipping practices that have enabled the Kim regime
to fund its dangerous weapons programs.
Our actions target shipping and trade companies, vessels and individuals across the world who
we know are working with North Korea's behalf.
Specifically, we are sanctioning 27 entities, 28 vessels and one individual, all involved
in sanctions evasion schemes.
Meanwhile, South Korea's president, Moon Jae-in, issued a statement on Monday urging the US
to support direct negotiations between North and South Korea.
Trump seemed to endorse the idea of talks at first but then said, "We'll see," emphasizing
that his conditions for talks would have to be met first.
Joining me now to analyze these latest developments is Larry Wilkerson.
Larry is former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, now a distinguished
professor at the College of William and Mary.
Thanks for joining us, Larry.
Thanks for having me, Sharmini.
So, Larry let's start off with the latest sanctions against North Korea.
Now, previously the US has mainly tried to prevent military equipment and fuel from getting
into North Korea.
This is a new level of escalation to bar commercial vessels.
What's your take on all of this?
I think North Korea has shown that it has a history of being able to evade sanctions,
no matter how cumbersome, no matter how crippling they might be.
Not to say that this won't have some impact, but I do think at the end of the day, North
Korea will still survive and survive with its nuclear program intact.
Now, one could say that these measures are not only sanctions, but they are actually
a blockade, and blockades are generally considered to be an act of war, and thus need to be sanctioned
by the United Nations Security Council.
How is the US getting away with this?
We've gotten away with it for almost a generation plus with regard to Cuba.
In fact, the Cubans actually refer to it as a blockade, which is far more accurate in
terms of international law and in terms of impact, than our euphemism of embargo.
So, as Mao Zedong intimated, international law comes out of the barrel of a gun, he that
has the power does it, and he that doesn't have the power suffers it.
That's the rule I think that's operative here too.
Right.
Larry, Trump is predicating talks with North Korea with forcing North Korea to abandon
its weapons program first.
Now, that doesn't seem like a negotiation.
Your thoughts on that.
I'd like to say it isn't ordinary, but it is.
We are, and it is particularly in what I'd call post-Cold War Era, where we don't seem
to understand what diplomacy is all about.
This is like you're going to a business negotiation and you tell your possible cohort, whether
it's one company, two companies or whatever on the other side of the table, that until
they're ready to surrender all their future profits, you won't sit down at the table with
them.
It's absurd.
It's not the way one does diplomacy, and I hope that what we're seeing is just more bravado,
more I want the high ground and I'm going to get the high ground at any cost, and then
eventually when we do sit down and talk, it will be more like a real negotiation, more
like real diplomacy, but I certainly don't know that.
Larry, what are the consequences of South Korea proceeding with talks without the US
in tow?
A long term objective, arguably from the very beginning of Kim Il-sung's regime in Pyongyang,
of the North Korea's has been to split the US-Korea alliance.
We have always taken the position with respect to that strategic objective, that we will
not allow bilateral talks to occur between South Korea and North Korea because we see
that as sort of the camel's nose under the tent.
That said, we have in the past done that.
We actually achieved, South Korea and North Korea actually achieved a peninsular-wide
denuclearization agreement, as I recall in 2000, under the auspices of those bilateral
talks, but they haven't happened very often.
One must assume that North Korea again is trying to split the alliance and using bilateral
talks as a way to do it.
And it's a possibility that now there might be more susceptibility to that sort of strategy
succeeding because we do have a situation developing on the peninsula, where the United
States, through its diplomatic obtuseness, its diplomatic incompetence, failing to put
an ambassador in Seoul, for example, peremptorily deploying altitude air defense to the peninsula
without really checking with the new government once it had been elected.
Doing the kinds of things Mike Pence did at the Olympics for example, refusing to acknowledge
that he's there, at his ally's behest and probably ought to stand, for example.
Those kinds of things have made this a more receptive environment to possibly splitting
the alliance.
I don't for a moment say that's going to happen.
I just say that the kinds of things we've done have been so inept that, especially Vis-à-vis
our ally on the southern half of the peninsula that the time to Kim Jong-un might seem a
little more ripe than it would to us.
Larry, the Trump administration sanctions that they have just announced affects not
only Korea but, of course, China, Singapore, Taiwan among other countries.
How do you expect these other countries to react to this move?
It depends on the country.
I'm certainly not one to template these countries.
That's a mistake we make in Washington all the time.
Each one has a different set of security policies, different set of foreign policies and a different
outlook on the region.
Australia is very different from Jakarta, Indonesia and that's different from Seoul
and so forth.
I think the general fear though in the region, amongst our allies, our friends and some of
our erstwhile enemies, is that nuclear proliferation will take place and it will go something like
this.
North Korea will persist.
South Korea will insist on getting its own counterweight and in the process of doing
that, Japan will go fully nuclear.
Prime Minister Abe right now is salivating at the prospect for example, of selling tanks
and submarines and airplanes and so forth, in what is a very lucrative arms market in
the world.
So, he wants Japan to be a full up power, that would probably mean nuclear weapons.
China is revisiting its doctrine, so that it's going to have to get a lot more nuclear
weapons in order to be able to ride out a first strike and strike back.
We're looking at a real possibility of some extensive proliferation in the region, not
just because of North Korea, but because that's the way things seem to be tending.
Let me add that the long pole in the tent, the ingredient, the catalyst for all of this
is the US presence on the peninsula.
That's the reason Kim Jong-un has a nuclear weapon or two because of the US presence on
the peninsula, the threat to Pyongyang, the threat to North Korea.
That's the reason the whole situation in northeast Asia managed by the strategy of strategic
patience by a number of presidents, ever since 1953, is now changing and possibly dramatically,
is the US persistent presence on the peninsula, threatening North Korea.
Larry, finally, what has happened in the Trump administration for this slight shift?
Earlier in the Trump administration and when Trump visited China, he put a great deal of
emphasis on China needing to take a lead in terms of this issue with North Korea.
They've taken a step back and they've become more aggressive in terms of wanting to deal
with North Korea more directly.
Why that shift?
I think it's probably mostly because of political opportunism and political desperation, if
you will.
Trump made so many promises that he's now finding them very difficult to keep.
Look at the CPAC speech that he just gave, where he had to dwell really on tax cuts and
appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.
He tried a few other things, but I think, even some of his followers know those other
things are hollow.
He really hasn't accomplished much at all.
So, he made a lot of promises.
He made a lot of promises in the security realm, with his bellicosity towards North
Korea, his bellicosity with regard to Syria and the Russian presence there, his bellicosity
with regard to Iran.
So, he's going to have to start, even with his base that was so rabid at CPAC, he's going
to have to start living up to some of these things or even those ignorant buffoons are
going to start to disbelieve him.
He dropped because of the Florida shootings primarily, to 35 or 38% in the polls.
So he's now at the lowest position any president had ever been, once again.
You're going to see a lot of this and you're going to see a lot of bravado, a lot of arrogance,
a lot of bellicosity, a lot of statements that seemed to make no sense other than coming
from a hubristic president who doesn't know what he's doing.
You're going to see much of this trying to satisfy that base, that he is in fact making
progress, towards fulfilling some of these promises he's made, one of which you may recall
is repeatedly been refuted by Kim Jong-un in North Korea.
He keeps saying that this isn't going to happen.
This isn't going to happen.
This isn't going to happen.
Watch the fire and fury.
Watch this.
Nothing's happened.
The only thing that's happened is more sanctions.
Frankly, the United States is going to sanction the whole world before this administration
has its end, apparently either tertiarily or secondarily or primarily.
This is an absurd foreign policy, an absurd security policy, but if we're going to go
another three years with this team, they're going to have to live up to some of these
promises and frankly that's what scares me because when you get down to the brass tacks
on these policies, none of them make any sense.
They're very dangerous.
Now, Larry, Moon Jae-in, the president of South Korea, was rather amicable towards North
Koreans during the Olympics, and the world was watching and they felt that there is an
opportunity here for the two sides to unite and resolve their problems.
Why is it so necessary for the US to be involved in these talks?
Well, at the end of the day, let's back up for just a minute.
Kim Yong-chol also visited after the very attractive and effervescent North Korean who
sat in the box with Mike Pence.
Kim Yong-chol is thought by South Korean intelligence to be the man who orchestrated the attacks
on South Korea, the boat and such that killed I think somewhere, 50, 51, South Koreans,
injured others.
So, the conservatives in South Korea, with whom I'm quite familiar because in my military
career, they were the ones with whom I most interfaced, were very angry with President
Moon, very angry for entertaining this guy, even though he is high ranking in the North
Korean structure in South Korea.
So, you have some argument going on in South Korea right now about President Moon's approach.
That said, I do think that the majority of the Korean people would like to see President
Moon given a chance, given his policy, and allow these talks to go on.
As I pointed out though, bilateral talks between the South and the North are dangerous for
the United States because there's no telling what might happen that the United States is
not in on.
It will be a fait accompli when it's presented to us.
I don't think the South Koreans would do that at this point, but their frustration with
us might grow to the point where they would seek an independent policy and make some kind
of a deal with Pyongyang.
Let me hasten to add, if that deal were good for the peninsula, good for South Korea and
negative or slightly negative or neutral for the United States, I'd probably be in favor
of it.
Because as I said in my initial comments, the real problem on the Korean peninsula is
the US presence there.
If we could secure the peninsula from offshore and not have a presence there and therefore
lessen the threat against Pyongyang and their homage, then we could probably do more for
peace on the Korean peninsula than anything else we might do, including military exercises,
flying B-2s to Guam and all the other things that we do.
Let me reiterate, the real problem on the Korean peninsula, and to a certain extent,
in northeast Asia right now, is the United States' land presence on the Korean peninsula.
All right, Larry.
We'll leave it there for now, but I'm sure we'll be continuing this conversation again
very soon.
Thanks Sharmini.
Take care.
And thank you for joining us here on The Real News Network.
-------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> Col. Wilkerson: Trump's N. Korea Diplomacy Absurd - Duration: 15:39.-------------------------------------------
Voici comment vous débarrasser d'un double menton en quelques semaines - Duration: 9:45.
For more infomation >> Voici comment vous débarrasser d'un double menton en quelques semaines - Duration: 9:45. -------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> Voici comment vous débarrasser d'un double menton en quelques semaines - Duration: 9:45.-------------------------------------------
感謝當年林心如不嫁之恩，他現和心愛的女神相戀，網友紛紛送祝福 - Duration: 2:34.
For more infomation >> 感謝當年林心如不嫁之恩，他現和心愛的女神相戀，網友紛紛送祝福 - Duration: 2:34. -------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> 感謝當年林心如不嫁之恩，他現和心愛的女神相戀，網友紛紛送祝福 - Duration: 2:34.-------------------------------------------
Learn How to Reduce People...
For more infomation >> Learn How to Reduce People...-------------------------------------------
BAD TATTOO - HEDLEY (Cover by JJ SINCLAIR) - Duration: 4:54.
hey this is that piano and vocals cover of Headley's bad tattoo
really like the song they were touring it just recently in Alberta and I heard
they were awesome so I and I heard this song on the radio and I was like yes
gotta do this song so thank you for checking it out if you like this video
click the like button share it on social media and subscribe for more videos
there's a new cover every week and I'm also writing a lot of my own original
songs that I'll be posting on this channel shortly today I have actually
written one so I'll get it up there right away thanks for checking it out
see you next time
I act sometimes like I can hold my breath but it don't stop me from sinking I
close my eyes like I got nothing left but it don't stop me from thinking
about your face and all those secrets, I let my heart try to find some rest
but it all still seems so heavy
You ghost like magic, you left without a trace
you act so reckless in my holy place
you run away I'm stuck with you still stuck with you though
I'm not that strong I can carry on I just get caught up in the fire I know
you're gone but I hope you're well but you left me hanging on a wire without your
face no no secrets I still chase this song like I'm caught in a spell
but it all still seems so heavy
you ghost like magic you left without a trace
you act so reckless in my holy place you run away, Im stuck with you so
stuck with you I'm still stuck with you
cold shadows, memories I cant erase
you act so reckless in my holy place, you run away
Im stuck with you, so stuck with you, Im still stuck with you
like a bad tattoo
stuck with you
like a bad tattoo
cold shadows, memories I can't erase, you act so reckless in my holy place
you run away I'm stuck with you, so stuck with you
I'm so stuck with you cold shadow is Mallory sunny can you raise your whack
cold shadows, memories I cant erase
you act so reckless and my holy place you run away, I'm stuck with you, so stuck with you
I'm still stuck with you
like a bad tattoo
stuck with you
stuck, stuck with you
if you have a song recommendation that you would like to see please comment
below and or you can message me thank if you want to if you're also a musician
I'd love to do covers with every kind of musician that I know whether you're
rapper heavy metal artists I don't care no I'm gonna get asked this probably by
my mom or dad or something asking what what's going on
talking about tattoos and terrible relationships no no none of that is
going on in my personal life right now so a guy just wants to do a song okay
well there's the dogs, oh boy, gotta go
-------------------------------------------
EXPOSING MY OWN FINSTA [Challenge] - Duration: 6:04.
me how would opinion man that's how they say hello in Spanish me llamo Ben and
welcome to ben de la semana that is Ben of the week in Chinese today we're going
to my Vince though now my friends of course like all Finn's those are private
and a lot of it is just like personal jokes none y'all will find them funny at
all you might be a little bit disturbed by them but there is some golden
pictures so you anniversa Lee hilarious finished the pictures that I'm gonna
share with you guys today now I could go through the pain of
blurring out my username in every single picture I'm not gonna do that I'm just
gonna show my Finster username whatever it's private but we're gonna do a
contest so stick around for the whole video I'm gonna show you guys opposed to
my Finn stuff and whoever roasts me in the comments the best gets to follow my
finish that gets a behind-the-scenes all-access pass this is probably a
horrible idea so stay tuned for that post I'll tell you when it was begin I
hate this so much this is my grad pictures my graduation pictures for the
kafshi in first of all I just found it funny
cuz this looks like a stock photo this looks like a like a horrible like
business acquired stock photo so the caption is young lad I guarantee you
don't have what it takes to make it in the business world it is dog-eat-dog
I myself have 47 years in stock brokering experience and I am Telling
You the Bulls are ready oh my god they're so dumb moving on we got a post
some three days ago this is a freshie I feel like I physically blowed up but I
mentally glow down swipe up and fall on my face if you roll a came moving on
this is from four days ago I just ate an entire bag of frozen mango and I feel my
face I what can i I ate a bag of frozen mango and I couldn't feel my face about
it all right we going way back now
we're going back into the wall the time machine that is my fence though this is
from October 11 2016 I didn't think I could actually do is I think a selfie
with no hands bro I'm moving on this one is a little bit
disgusting so like don't if you squeamish skip ahead like 20 seconds uh
this is what I like I fell on my longboard I felt when I was on my
longboard and I like scrape my knee and coincidentally broke my phone it's
shipped on the side now because the same incident and understand I posted on my
fist it's disgusting also my knee was really
hairy oh my god I forgot about this picture you some context of this picture
probably very confused right now so I was on the plane at Tokyo it was like a
school trip to Japan and this was about 10 hours into the flight and I just
wanted to die this was probably the worst fight I've ever been on I was so
gassy the airplane food was disgusting and so I'm like hmm let's let's have a
little mental right there and we're moving on from this picture this is a
cursive image all right we got oh this is me this is January 25th 2017 just me
chilling with the can of Pringles living life absolutely all right moving on
alright this is a picture that you guys need to roast me with comment down below
a good caption for this picture and just go go off roast me okay whoever has the
best roast can follow my Instagram this is so dumb Kim Kardashian has 90 million
followers Jesus Christ has six never big snuggly seconds nice six billion people
don't even believe in God anyways look at the picture that's a
great picture I've seen like my aunt post this on Facebook before I need to
like low-key show moving on I'm a quirky lover of math so
I'm eating a pot pie for pi day you absolute lad all right moving on this is
another airport mental breakdown picture I just had this wig and I brought it
with me to Europe and I'm like this was in the Amsterdam Airport I think and I'm
like let's just put it on moving on okay well this one I am not sure if I was
sober or not but you know what I'm 18 now so it's whatever if I was 17 20 we
going to McDonald's at 2:00 a.m.
y'all got boneless cucumber go come brain I'm so annoying honestly this was
recently this was when I went to Seattle I think and it's a feel like immigration
machines they have like these things but it like takes a picture of your face and
you just like hang to the customs officer and I don't know why I smiled
like that that doesn't even remotely look like this is my friend Natalie I
shouldn't say frame because of this video she really likes Nicki Minaj
that's all I'm gonna say let's watch this video pronto she she has a talent
that needs to be shared with this world what what is this picture I think this
was screencap from one of my you now broadcast I think now I'm bald and
ladies and gentlemen that was my fin stuff I truly hope you enjoyed I hope
you don't think differently you know anyways with that being said
Roshi just go although absolutely obliterate me to smithereens with your
roasting thanks for watching and I'll be back next Monday with another video I
don't know if you enjoyed this video please leave a like and subscribe it
helps the time Bend of the week
-------------------------------------------
Plasma Pulse Finale Nerfed (Medium Demon) 69% (VOICE ADDED) Subtitles by: Me - Duration: 2:51.
(Sigh)
Again
Let's see if I could do it
Probably won't
(Clicking Intensifies)
(Clicking Intensifies once again)
Ok
Here we go
HERE WE GO
(Blows)
(Clicking Intensifies) x1
(Clicking Intensifies) x2
My Mind: "Clicking is too loud"
(Deep Breath)
My God
(Clicking Faster)
DEAD
"URRRRRRG"
(Sigh)
Noooooooo
How could I fail there? (Because you did) -GD ReVise ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
"URRG"
My God
(Weird Noise?)
I was getting so stressed out
Are You Serious? (Yes)
(Sigh) My Gosh
That's not the total amount of attempts, like over 1,000+ attempts were in practice and progress.
And like 200+ attempts from pre-recording.
(Correcting) Pre-recording
(Sigh) my gosh...
I didn't think I was going to fail at 69%
I thought I was going to fail at the wave part. (Personally my hardest part)
oh my gosh
(Help Button) Help
Help Me
Ok, I'ma Go
Subtitles By GD ReVise! Please Subscribe!
-------------------------------------------
My Review of THE WASP FACTORY - Duration: 5:07.
Hi! Today I'm doing a review of THE WASP FACTORY by Iain Banks. That's as much as the cover as I dare show without
taking this off. I got it on interlibrary loan.
So, yes, THE WASP FACTORY. This was Iain Banks' first novel, and actually, it was at
the suggestion of a blogger friend that I decided to read Iain Banks. And I think
he's better known for science fiction, but this first novel was astonishing. I
think that's a good word for it. It's about a guy named Frank ... well, a character
named Frank, and he lives with his father and his family situation is
dysfunctional to say the least. And he is a psychopath. I mean the guy is nuts, but
bear with me here. I mean, at first, I wasn't sure I was going to like it for
that reason. But the thing is somehow or other ... okay, let me back up. Frank is
living on this island in Scotland, and there's a town nearby that he occasionally goes
to and his father also goes to and gets drunk in and he gets drunk there too, for
that matter. He has a brother named Eric, and Eric apparently has been
hospitalized, because he's nuts and does things like sets dogs on fire. But this
is a highly suspenseful novel, because Eric has escaped apparently from this
place and is coming home. And it's obvious that Frank is very nervous about
this and what's going to happen when Eric arrives. So there's a high degree of
suspense in this novel and, at the same time, it's absolutely
hilarious. I mean this guy is totally nuts, but when he talks about
Eric he says, "It's a good thing I'm so sane." And all I'll say is that
somehow this ... oh, if you don't have a strong stomach for animal torture scenes
or death scenes, don't read this book. That's another thing that almost put
me off the book. It's the deaths of animals and stuff that's kind of
horrible, but somehow it's written in a way that is just so compelling and funny.
I couldn't get over how funny it was for being so gross, actually.
So I actually recommend this book, but just beware that there's a lot in there
that might turn your stomach or make you say, "Oh, this is sick!" I guess it's a kind
of a "Pulp Fiction"-y kind of humor. Somehow you find humor in things that
are violent or sick? I don't know. I don't understand why that happens, but it does
happen, and this book is actually very also eloquently written. Just beautifully
written. So this is actually a recommendation for the book, even though
there's violence and the guy is just crazy, but you come to understand why.
That's the thing. You eventually understand why he's the way he is. And
it's so sad. It's just sad, funny. That's all I'll say. Sad, funny,
outrageous, violent. The end. Also, if you'd like to get a copy
of the book, I'll put a link in the description to the video down below that
you can click on and get it at Amazon or other places if I can find it other
places. Okay, that'll be it then, and I'll talk to you later!
-------------------------------------------
Reacting to YTP The Incredi-LOLs Reaction - Duration: 6:30.
What's up guys
Yabba-doo crafts you welcome back to another reaction video. Oh, we'll be reacting to ytp that incredible blows
Incredibles right EP by Yoshimi deaq
So I know this is gonna be funny because you know YouTube poops or YT peas they could be really funny
It doesn't matter. What kind. They could be funny no matter
What will it depend, but otherwise guys if you guys know my reaction?
Please make sure to smash that like button or no gross or 7000 subscribers
But otherwise if guys enjoy my reactions smash that like button and let's begin
Oh
My gosh
Really
Oh my god, I was just reacting to get out my car wreck electronic sounds on my car
Um a cucumber
Play minecraft
Yes, you are you've done all this before he poops on my stool
Oh
My god
How'd your drink now just getting a drink oh my god
Two rows later. Oh my god driving up that taco that cream pure vanilla
What's with the Reese ports
I enjoyed that
Alright guys. I hope you guys enjoy my reaction. Please make sure to drop that like button
I really enjoyed this youtube poop
Credits goes to Yoshi meaty act down a description below and along with the original video. I really enjoyed this youtube poop
it was really well made and all that I
Wonder how long it took him probably hours are probably days or probably even longer than that
but otherwise it was good youtube poop credits goes to the
Channel link along with them
Their original video down below, but otherwise guys. I hope you guys enjoyed
I really enjoyed this ytp or you too boo boo
It was really cool and funny at the same time, but otherwise. I hope you guys enjoyed and I will see you guys later
See ya
-------------------------------------------
capsicum bread roll recipe/capsicum chapati roll/capsicum curry/bread roll recipe - Duration: 10:02.
please like and share
please subscribe
-------------------------------------------
CAPTAIN AMERICA's Moves Set Marvel: Avengers Alliance - Conjunto de Movimientos del Capitán América - Duration: 0:56.
For more infomation >> CAPTAIN AMERICA's Moves Set Marvel: Avengers Alliance - Conjunto de Movimientos del Capitán América - Duration: 0:56. -------------------------------------------
Dior Sauvage Eau de Parfum Fragrance Review 2018 - Duration: 5:19.All hail the beard it's your boy Big Beard B and we're back for another edition of Big Beard
Business! In today's video we're discussing the latest release from the
House of Dior and we're talking about Dior Sauvage Eau de Parfum.
So how do you introduce the fragrance that needs no introduction? How do you
hype a fragrance that needs no hype? I mean, I say you don't I'm just gonna do my
review and let the chips fall where they will; so as you guys are aware Dior
recently release its follow-up to its 2015 breakthrough fragrance Dior
Sauvage. You know they came out with that EDP instead of that EDT, so for that EDP
formulation Dior went for something BIGGER, they went for something BETTER,
they want for something BADDER, they went for something STRONGER, but is that
what we really got? Let's go ahead and check it out.
Alright guys so here is your box, your presentation, it comes in this little
weird stand it's not really needed. It calls out that it's new, its just a waste.
You don't need that and this is the box it's sauvage, do you know what sauvage means?
It means wild, it means beastly, it means phuck the box, it means phuck you Dior, that's what it means.
Alright guys so as you are aware, the presentation on Dior Sauvage Eau de Parfum is pretty similiar
to the original which is fine. I mean main differences here is you have
the Eau de Parfum written on the front there to call out that it's the Eau de Parfum
because otherwise, you won't know no damn difference. As with the original
fragrance you still get that ambroxan base and I can still detect them lemon
and bergamot in this one as well. I mean I can still detect the spiciness when
that pepper is there but on the Eau de Parfum concentration this one is an
insy tinsy weensy bit more refined. I mean I still get those woody nuances, I
still get that zesty, woody undertone here, with those marine accords. I mean
this one may still have some ambergris in it and it's pretty similar to the original
if you ask me. I mean I guess you are asking me because you clicked on the video to
get my take on it. Now here are my actual thoughts on this one if I did not tell
you that I was wearing the EDP concentration I don't think you would be
able to just walk up to me and say hey he's not wearing EDT he's wearing EDP. I
mean if you really spent some time with this fragrance you can start to notice
some subtle differences between the Eau de Toilette and the Eau de Parfum, but I
don't really think that's what most of you guys out there are looking for. Look
I mean this may not be a shocker to you guys based on the thumbnail but here on
my thoughts. Do not buy Dior Sauvage Eau de Parfum and why is that might you ask?
Before you get all crazy out there and slaughter me down in the comments here
are my personal thoughts. This is a good fragrance but it does not separate
itself enough from the original to me to warrant a separate purchase.
I mean it's slightly more refined but not enough to say "Hey! look at me I'm
here!" It's not wild enough. Now I have my personal feelings about the original
Dior Sauvage the Eau de Toilette concentration but my personal thing is
if you enjoy the ambroxan notes in here and you like this type of fragrance
then you just need to go to the original. I mean save yourself the couple of bucks
their original is a solid compliment getter. It performs well, I mean at least in
my experience with the fragrance performed well. Now for the people that I
had tried this fragrance no one thought it was exciting and additionally no one
liked it enough to say hey this is something that I would you know
compliment someone on or actually go out and purchase myself, which in my
opinion is atypical from the original. Now I did say that this one smells similar
to the original but is just different enough to not get the same compliments
to not perform just the same enough to not scream and say look at me! I am a
savage! If you had this one or the original I really don't think there's a
time or a place where it wouldn't work. Is it a good fragrance?
Yes, I mean does it perform, yes but I personally believe that if you again
are looking for a fragrance that has that ambroxan note, if you're a fan of
Dior and you want something that savage, something that's wild, something that is
untamed, then you might want to go with the original over this one just my
personal thoughts and opinions. I believe that if you have to choose one I would
go with the EDT over the EDP. I think on a scale of one to 10 that I'm going to
give this one a 7. I think it's solid, just like the original is solid, but I
think the original is a tad bit better, which is why I don't believe you should
buy the Eau de Parfum. Am I tripping? I mean is this one groundbreaking, is it
revolutionary is this one a must-have in your fragrance collection. If so comment
below and let me know. I'm your boy Big Beard B. Don't forget to Like, Comment
Subscribe. Tell a friend to tell a friend, that we are back again. If you're savage
not this ol refined thing, if you're a wild savage then hit the got-damn bell.
-------------------------------------------
걸그룹 원했던 대학생이 축제 게스트 명단보고 분노한 사연 | korea 247 DHL - Duration: 3:04.
For more infomation >> 걸그룹 원했던 대학생이 축제 게스트 명단보고 분노한 사연 | korea 247 DHL - Duration: 3:04. -------------------------------------------
How To Cookie Art Decorating Satisfying | AWESOME Cookie Art Decorating Compilation #4 - Duration: 6:33.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét