Hello, I'm Hatsune Miku!~
Let's start the range test~ (◕‿◕✿)
If you're high ranged, you'll be able to hit the notes!
hiA~ hiB~ hiC~ (hi)D~ (hi)C~
This is super low for you, right?
I'll give you some more notes~ (•◡•)
If you're just an average person you won't be able to hit them though ಠ‿↼
But If you're high ranged,
Even if you catch a cold you'll be able to sing it~
hiD~ hiE~ hiF~ (hi)G~ (hi)F~
That's still your midrange, right?
I'll give you another set of notes~ (☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞
Is your falsetto up to the challenge? (ง'̀-'́)ง
If you're high ranged,
This'll be a piece of cake, right? ｡◕‿◕｡
hiG~ hihiA~ hihiA#~ (hihi)C~ (hihi)D~
You can give up if you want ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Now I'll give you the last set of notes~ ♪~ ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ
The lyrics are too high to hear right? ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ
Show me the true power of your high pitched range! ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ
hihiC~ hihiD~ hihiD#~ (hihi)F~ (hihi)G~
The end!~ ｡◕‿‿◕｡
Nope, I lied!~ (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧
hihihiA~ hihihiB~ hihihiC~ (hihihi)D~ (hihihi)E~
Defoko: Km ಠ_ಠ
If you were able to make it this far,
You passed!~ (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧
RIP Teto
Defoko: Am I ded yet?
Tei: Nope, sadly :v
Defoko: Oh great ಠ╭╮ಠ
Defoko: Can I leave now?
For more infomation >> 【MMD】High Range Test (Miku, Len, Rin, Luka, Meiko, Kaito, IA, Gumi, Fukase, Piko, Teto) - Duration: 1:31.-------------------------------------------
Road Trip #186 - I-49 South - Exit 73: Woodworth to Exit 46: St Landry, Louisiana - Duration: 10:59.
Welcome back to 504 Road Trips!
Today, we continue south on I-49 beginning at mile 73, near the town of Woodworth, in
Rapides Parish, Louisiana.
Along the right hand side of I-49 is a narrow strip of protected land and water called the
Acadiana Conservation Corridor Wildlife Management Area.
This 26 mile corridor spans 4 parishes, and is only accessible by boat.
We temporarily cross into a small corner of Evangeline Parish, for less than a mile.
We'll see Evangeline again in the next video.
Then we enter Avoyelles Parish.
Avoyelles Parish has a population of 41,117.
We conclude today's video at exit 46, St. Landry.
Thanks for watching.
Please subscribe, give us a thumbs up, share, comment below, follow us on social media,
and join us for our next 504 Road Trip!
-------------------------------------------
We played Foosball!!! - Duration: 7:03.
For more infomation >> We played Foosball!!! - Duration: 7:03. -------------------------------------------
Bad Baby Spiderman Play Toys Tools for Kids Drive Car Color Song Nursery Rhymes | Compilation Video - Duration: 10:35.
Thanks For Watching!
-------------------------------------------
Jensen Ackles- Huracán Harvey (sub.español) - Duration: 0:35.
For more infomation >> Jensen Ackles- Huracán Harvey (sub.español) - Duration: 0:35. -------------------------------------------
Dicas para desenvolver o placar interno! [ANTIFRÁGIL] #A Hora do Roxo #4 - Duration: 2:44.
For more infomation >> Dicas para desenvolver o placar interno! [ANTIFRÁGIL] #A Hora do Roxo #4 - Duration: 2:44. -------------------------------------------
Free Thoughts, Ep. 199: Close America's Overseas Bases (with John Glaser) - Duration: 50:34.
Aaron Powell: Welcome to Free Thoughts.
I'm Aaron Powell.
Trevor Burrus: And I'm Trevor Burrus.
Aaron Powell: Joining us today is John Glaser.
He's the Associate Director of Foreign Policy Studies here at the Cato Institute.
Welcome to Free Thoughts, John.
John Glaser: Thanks.
Aaron Powell: What is America's "forward-deployed military posture?"
John Glaser: So that's a fancy Pentagon way of saying that we have a lot of overseas military
bases.
We have about 800 of them, of varying sizes, [00:00:30] in about 70 countries abroad.
It's a massive presence.
Some of these bases have people for years, and years, and years, permanently stationed
there with their families.
They build little cities inside these military bases to sustain life.
Others are really small, with only a few troops.
Just to get a sense of the size of it, it has roughly 250,000 [00:01:00] troops at all
times, all around the world.
In comparison, Russia, our geopolitical competitor, has only about nine overseas bases.
China has just one, in Djibouti.
It's a uniquely American preoccupation, this forward deployed presence.
Trevor Burrus: Has that number, 800, changed much in the last 20 years or so?
John Glaser: Yeah.
Trevor Burrus: Or maybe 50 years?
John Glaser: Sure.
[00:01:30] Since the Cold War, the number of troops deployed abroad has definitely gone
down.
The number of bases has gone down as well, but they went back up with regard to the Middle
East.
We took a lot of troops and bases out of Europe at the end of the Cold War, and reduced some
bases that we had in Asia.
Our presence and activity in the Middle East increased.
Since the end of the Cold War, we've [00:02:00] actually increased our presence there.
Aaron Powell: Where are these?
You said they're in 70 countries, and we have more in the Middle East than we used to; but
in general, where are these located?
Are they highly concentrated in specific parts of the world?
Or, are we pretty much covering everything?
John Glaser: They're highly concentrated, especially the major ones with lots of troops
in them, in Europe, the Middle East, and North-east Asia; so Japan and South Korea have very large
numbers of US troops.
Germany has a lot of US troops.
We have them scattered throughout the rest [00:02:30] of Europe as well.
Then, in the Middle East, we have roughly 50,000 troops.
We have major, 13 to 14,000 in Kuwait.
We have 7,000 roughly rotating in and out of Iraq right now.
We have, of course, the major presence still in Afghanistan.
We're still fighting a war there.
Major air bases in Qatar, and about 6 or 7,000 troops permanently stationed in the Navy's
Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, which is right in the [00:03:00] Persian Gulf.
Trevor Burrus: Now, you argue that we shouldn't have as many ... I mean, we could cut that
in half and we would still have substantially more.
We could have 400 bases and we still would have substantially more than any other country.
That would definitely be a significant change in US Foreign Policy if we were not so, as
we say, 'forward deployed' out there.
Is it asking too much, first of all, to not be able to put our force abroad at any sort
of ... five minutes from [00:03:30] being able to bomb Iran.
That's the way we think about American Foreign Policy.
Stepping back from that is really rethinking the entirety of American Foreign Policy.
John Glaser: Yeah.
I will reveal my own bias here.
I think yes, our foreign policy needs a fundamental re-think.
We shouldn't be playing the global policeman.
I think the purpose of American foreign policy ought to be what it used to be, which is essentially
protecting the physical security of the United States territory and it's citizens.
[00:04:00] Managing local disputes in remote regions of the world that don't have all that
much impact for our security or our economic interest, I don't think is in our interest.
I don't think that makes sense for us.
Part of the problem with having lots of bases in lots of different countries around the
world is that it tends to suck us into conflicts that we otherwise might not be engaged in.
For example, [00:04:30] after the Second World War in 1945, we established what was supposed
to be a temporary presence in South Korea.
We were supposed to work with the Russians to develop some kind of situation in which
the Korean Peninsula could operate on it's own, and have it's own government.
In 1947, 48, and 49, three successive years, the top military strategists in the Truman
Administration recommended full withdrawal.
[00:05:00] They did so because they said Korea is of little strategic importance to us.
The fact is that we had a presence there, and then when the North Koreans invaded in
1950, it obligated the United States to continue to be involved.
This is the case with our current commitments.
For example, we have bases in the Philippines that ... and Japan.
Japan and the Philippines both have maritime and territorial disputes with China.
If it's the case that they end up getting into some kind [00:05:30] of dispute, our
forces act as a trip wire.
They obligate the United States, make it politically costly for us not to get involved in optional
elective conflicts.
I think that's one of the major problems with it.
Aaron Powell: But doesn't this get to the ... The argument in part for these bases is
precisely that that's the sort of stuff we should be doing, that if we ... We don't want
the North Koreans taking over the Korean Peninsula.
We don't want China destroying Japan.
If we've got these bases there, [00:06:00] be they act as a deterrent in the first place,
and if they don't, they make us more capable and make those countries more capable of defending
themselves.
John Glaser: Indeed.
As we deter adversaries and reassure allies, this has the effect of, according to advocates
of forward deployment, pacifying the international systems.
Sometimes it's called the American pacifier.
We basically prevent spirals of conflict happening around the world, because this major hegemonic
power has troops everywhere.
[00:06:30] That's an argument; but I think you have to consider the other plausible,
causal explanations for the dramatic decline in international conflict and violence over
the past 70 years.
It is true that our forward presence was established after World War II.
It's also true that since then, there's a correlation between the establishment of those
bases and the decline of overall interstate violence.
But, there's other [00:07:00] factors as well.
For example, the fact that most great powers and some not-so-great powers have nuclear
weapons.
This creates a situation of mutually assured destruction, and it makes people really not
want to go to war because that means the destruction of your society.
Some people, that's called the 'Nuclear Peace Theory.'
Very honorable and respected theorists like Kenneth Waltz in the international relations
field have proffered that one.
Some people look at the Nuclear Peace Theory and say, "Well, sure, but that's probably
[00:07:30] redundant.
The conventional power that modern militaries have, as we saw in World War I and World War
II are so destructive.
They can destroy empires.
They can kill people almost as effectively as nuclear weapons, and so that acts as enough
of a deterrent: the modern capacity of industrialized militaries is too great."
Then, some people look at economic interdependence, which of course, has proliferated in the [00:08:00]
post-war era.
If you trade with someone and you have economic interdependence, you're much less likely to
go to war with them.
Some other people still look further.
John Mueller, for example; who you guys know, he's a political scientist out of Ohio State
University.
He has senior fellow here at Cato.
He's one of the foremost proponents that there have been dramatic normative shifts in the
way most civilized people see war in this era.
[00:08:30] It's something if you go back to the World War I era, you can hear people in
Germany and even our own leaders like Teddy Roosevelt at the time, talking about war as
something to aspire to.
It was a cleansing national experience that made people strong and glorious, and masculine.
That's different from today.
Even the war mongers among us tend to talk about war as something of a last resort.
Then of course, there's 'Democratic Peace Theory.'
There are more [00:09:00] democracies these days.
Democracies for some reason or another, tend not to go to war with each other.
You have all of these different trends, all of these different trend lines of ... that
have various support in the academic community.
They all point in the direction of less war and less violence.
Under those conditions, I think it's worth scrutinizing the American pacifier theory.
Aaron Powell: We turn to history, briefly.
We're talking a good [00:09:30] prompt for this conversation today is a paper you recently
published with Cato, which we'll put a link to in the show notes, about these overseas
bases.
You have a section on the how the motivations for having them have changed over time.
Can you tell us a bit about that [inaudible 00:09:47] ... long history of putting troops
in places that aren't your own territory?
John Glaser: Sure.
I don't know how much of the long history I can go into detail about, but the things
that I talk about in the-
Trevor Burrus: Actually, I'm going to interject with the first ... Before World War II, [00:10:00]
we did have the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.
When was the first sort of forward deployment?
We had Guam.
We had Philippines.
Starting in the early 20th century, we did have troops abroad, correct?
John Glaser: Yeah.
1898, after the Spanish-American War, we did adopt some pretty major overseas bases that
also ended up ... We sort of annexed territory.
We still own Guam, for example, and lots of other pieces of territory.
It's hard [00:10:30] to say when our first overseas military base.
Sometimes in the mid-1800s and actually early 1800s, we had some outposts in China to try
to facilitate trade between the United States and China.
I wouldn't really count that as a full military base in the sense that we're currently talking
about.
The 1898 style discussion, some people sometimes call that the 'saltwater fallacy,' because
we were still an expanding continent [00:11:00] here in the contiguous United States.
We had all sorts of military bases out West.
When it got past the salt water, people talk about that being more imperial inclinations.
With regard to the history, overseas military bases are not all that new.
You had Athens and Sparta building military bases throughout Greece.
You had Rome building military bases from Britannia all the way to [00:11:30] the other
end of the Mediterranean.
Empires of old used to build military bases to colonize distant lands with their own people.
They used to build them for mercantilist reasons, to gain economic advantage over their other
competitors.
It was only in the really the start of the Cold War, the end of World War [00:12:00]
II, that overseas bases started to develop this current justification.
Which is to, number one, deter adversaries.
Number two, reassure allies.
Number three, make it really easy for us to get places quickly if we decide we want to
go to war.
Aaron Powell: If we take the arguments, we accept the arguments of people who think that
there should be overseas bases, those arguments would seem to apply to other countries as
well.
[00:12:30] Then, why is that ... The United States has a bigger military than Russia,
and a bigger military than China; but the difference in the number of bases we have
versus the number of bases they have can't be explained just by the ratios there.
If these bases are valuable, why don't other countries have so many?
Why are they all sitting in the single digits?
John Glaser: The United States is unique in it's definition of it's national interests.
We have truly expansive definition of what our national interests are, what our [00:13:00]
global responsibilities are.
China doesn't have, within it's own national security strategy, what kind of military intervention
they would engage in if there's a humanitarian conflict in Latin America, or something.
No other country has such an expansive definition of it's national interests as the United States
does.
The other thing that's important in that context is that the United States is safer than most
other great [00:13:30] powers.
We have weak and pliant neighbors to our North and South.
We have vast oceans to our East and West, which act as a defensive barrier to most conventional
kinds of threats.
We spend ... roughly 38% of the global military spending is our own.
We could cut our military spending in half and still outspend China right now.
We have a nuclear deterrent, which prevents anyone from attacking our own territories.
This [00:14:00] situation puts us in a really secure place.
When you're really secure, unfortunately, and you're the unipolar power, the hegemony
in the world, you start to think about what you can do elsewhere as opposed to just protecting
your own borders.
Trevor Burrus: Don't you think that other ... You said we have our ... We conceptualize
our interests very broadly, but don't you think that other countries also do that to
us?
That they expect us to do the right thing, and that we're the benevolent hegemony, and
that that's actually the [00:14:30] entire point?
That it's not that big a deal that we're in Germany because we are generally a good country
that ... What's [inaudible 00:14:39], we will do the right thing after we've exhausted all
other options.
People know that about us, but I think that Germany probably wants us there.
Aaron Powell: They're not scared, at least, that we're going to up and decide to take
them over.
Trevor Burrus: Yeah.
No one's afraid of that.
No one's thinking that we're Rome and we're trying to take over the whole world.
Maybe in some of these places like Bahrain or a place where we [00:15:00] have ... We
might [engineer 00:15:02] conflict and put our people in danger, because there are people
there who want to get them.
That's a totally different analysis than say, Germany, which is probably creating good relations
between America and Germany, and allowing us to do what they're asking us to do; which
is to be the benevolent hegemony.
Which, I think we've done a pretty good job of that.
John Glaser: Yeah.
So first of all, it's totally true that Germany is not worried about the United States taking
over Germany.
That's not our M-O.
But if you're talking about the perception of [00:15:30] our military posture abroad,
you also have to take into account people that aren't benefiting off American largess,
that aren't having their defense subsidized by the United States and our presence there.
For example, one of the most dangerous points in the entirety of the Cold War, was of course,
the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Only a matter of months prior to that crisis, the Kennedy Administration put missiles, Jupiter
missiles, [00:16:00] in Turkey, which bordered the Soviet Union.
Of course, Moscow perceived this as deeply threatening.
The leadership at the time in Russia, in the Soviet Union discussed in papers that have
since been declassified that, 'We feel we're being surrounded by military bases from the
United States, and so we're going to give them a taste of their own medicine and put
one in Cuba.'
That precipitated literally the closest we've come to nuclear war, [00:16:30] so that was
obviously not a good thing.
That translates to today.
For example, the expansion of NATO, and the establishment of US military bases further
and further East towards Russia, and even up to the Russian border in some cases, is
the source of profound and lingering anxiety and resentment in Russia.
They don't like the perception that they're being sort of encircled.
You can also compare this in [00:17:00] Asia.
The United States has almost roughly 50,000 troops in Japan, right at the end of the Japanese
archipelago, which is sort of pointed like a dagger at the center of China.
We have about 30,000 troops in Korea, which of course, is very close to China.
We guarantee the security of the Philippines.
We have 60% of our naval presence in the Asia Pacific region.
[00:17:30] This is perceived in China as deeply threatening.
Every country and it's allies tends to view themselves as benevolent and wonderful, and
non-threatening.
The problem is when you get into other people's heads, they see it much differently.
Just to conclude this part, one of the foremost grievances cited for the 9/11 attacks was
the US military presence in Saudi Arabia.
It was something that Al Qaeda cited [00:18:00] in order to rally Muslim support against the
United States.
It was one of the foremost reasons and justifications that they used to attack us.
Our presence abroad can create all kinds of resentment.
That's not just in countries in the Middle East.
Just a year or so ago, there was a protest of 65,000 Okinawans in Japan in opposition
to the US military base presence there.
This can happen [00:18:30] all over the world, even among allies.
Trevor Burrus: I want to, on the 9/11 point, do you believe it is the case that, but for
American military bases, the ones cited in the Al Qaeda letter, in Saudi Arabia in particular,
I believe, but for those, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
John Glaser: Well, there was a number of grievances that Al Qaeda-
Trevor Burrus: Well, we still would have been attacked.
I guess to clarify my question, too, if we just flew [inaudible 00:18:58] from Germany
[00:19:00] and attacked them, how much is the bases, and how much is it the military
actions?
If we were bombing places, but flying from Germany, or we were still treating the ... muslim
[inaudible 00:19:12].
That seems like a bigger thing than just the presence of a base that we're discussing right
now.
John Glaser: That's true.
In general, of course, lots of Muslims, particularly the extremist ones, oppose aggressive military
action in the Middle East.
The presence of US military forces [00:19:30] inside Saudi Arabia, which is the site of
the two holiest places in Islam, was the source of particular concern to very religious Muslims
because they felt that the Saudi government was inviting infidels and crusaders to the
holiest place in Islam.
That was the source of a particular and unique religious concern.
It's also the case that Robert Pape, one of the foremost [00:20:00] scholars on terrorism,
has said his studies that foreign occupation is the foremost determinative of terrorism,
a motivator for terrorism.
If you can go back in history, for example, when we had our massive military presence
in Lebanon in the 1980s.
In 1983, that's when Hezbollah committed an attack that killed something like 241 ... I
might get that number wrong ... US service personnel.
[00:20:30] In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked out of Yemen.
These foreign military bases are symbols of American power in the region.
All the other stuff, whether it's Israel/Palestine, the sanctions regime on Iraq, which ended
up killing lots of people, all kinds of other more tangible elements of US influence in
the region, the bases [00:21:00] themselves ... as I say, operate as a kind of symbol
of American power that can generate a lot of resentment.
Aaron Powell: Okay, but I can ... putting on my rah-rah war hat for a moment.
Trevor Burrus: It doesn't fit you very well.
Aaron Powell: No.
Trevor Burrus: It's been in the closet for a long time.
Aaron Powell: Yeah.
I guess, so what?
Russia, they're the bad guys; a powerful military run by a mad man.
China is the bad [00:21:30] guys.
The Islamic extremists are the bad guys.
Yeah, having super powerful good guys next to them makes them uncomfortable, and they
don't like it, and it makes them resent that we're more powerful than they are.
So what?
Why should that factor in?
Why should we just give in to the psychological pain of the bad guys and not protect our interests?
Trevor Burrus: Yeah, if we hadn't done Hitler with a bunch of military bases and it made
Hitler uncomfortable, you'd be like, "That's the point."
John Glaser: [00:22:00] It depends on what kind of results you want.
If you believe in the power of American deterrents, and that everywhere we put bases, it's going
to keep bad guys in check, then that's one reason to further the argument that you just
made.
The problem is that there are reactions to our overseas military presence.
It's what's called counter-balancing in the IR literature.
[00:22:30] For example, it's hard to find someone in Moscow or in the Kremlin that describes
the motivations for their military actions in Georgia and Ukraine in ways that doesn't
cite NATO expansion.
Lots of analysts point to Chinese aggressive and assertive actions in the South China Sea
as being motivated by a fear that the United States in the largest [00:23:00] naval presence
there.
Therefore, that's where they get all their oil, through the straights of Malacca coming
through the Persian Gulf, in the Strait of Malacca ... and we could possibly interdict
Chinese shipments.
When you make foreign powers nervous unnecessarily, you tend to get unintended consequences that
result from that.
Usually those aren't too pretty.
Now, the problem is that people see these things very differently.
People that advocate [00:23:30] for a foreign deployed presence, they don't like to admit
that Russia has taken aggressive actions in Eastern Europe as a result of the expansion
of our military presence.
Instead, they say, "Well, that's proof that we don't have enough of a military presence
there," which is an argument for always having military bases everywhere, forever.
I think that gets so far from what the purpose of American foreign policy should be that
it creates all kinds of problems.
There's costs problems, which I [00:24:00] think we can talk about a little bit.
More to the point, if you are like me, and I again, be clear about my biases here, I
think the United States government should be limited in it's powers and it's role in
domestic societies should be somewhat limited, especially compared with the role that it's
currently conceived as.
I think that translates as well to the foreign realm.
I think it ought to be the role of the American foreign policy, the purpose in American foreign
[00:24:30] policy, to protect the United States and managing global affairs, and trying to
prevent conflict in various regions, et cetera, getting ourselves drawn into conflicts, incentivizing
counter balancing, all these other negative unintended consequences, that doesn't meld
with my conception of what US foreign policy ought to be about.
Aaron Powell: The world is a relatively safe place, compared to [00:25:00] where it's been.
We don't have a lot of wars between nations.
Living in a dangerous world, even if we're ... across oceans from it, is still worse
than living in a safe world.
Wouldn't us focusing only on our own interests narrowly defined and pulling back, make the
world in general a more dangerous place?
Because then you wouldn't have [00:25:30] the US protecting countries or deterring countries,
even if there are these occasional push-backs and aggression that's provoked by it.
Which would then, just aside from being bad for the world, would ultimately be bad for
America.
John Glaser: Well, this gets back to the American pacifier thesis.
If you believe that the world is a safer place these days because America has scores of military
bases in scores of countries, then that's a really powerful argument.
[00:26:00] I think there are solid reasons to think that the world is a safer place these
days for reasons other than American pacifier.
Aaron Powell: But I guess the question is how does the cost benefit, kind of.
You could say you've got ... There's the American pacifier theory, and then there's the other
theories that you're more inclined to endorse; but given the state of the world right now
and how relatively good it is compared to where it could be and where it's been, it's
a profound risk to test those theories.
We can't test them on [00:26:30] the small scale and say, "Oh, it turns out to be ... maybe
the American pacifier theory is a little bit better than I thought," Or, "Maybe these other
ones aren't quite as right," and then roll it back.
Are the current costs that we are incurring at the moment, both in terms of just how expensive
it is and the danger that it puts American people, American troops in, high enough to
warrant that risk of testing John's theory about global stability?
John Glaser: Yes, because I don't think it's actually [00:27:00] that much of a risk.
It might help to narrow this down to a specific context, as opposed to thinking about the
entire world.
If you can remember it in the 2016 campaign, one of the main things Donald Trump kept saying
was that China, it's China's responsibility to pressure North Korea to behave better and
stop it's nuclear development, and missile development, et cetera.
One of the main reasons that China continues to [00:27:30] be a patron of North Korea is
that one of the main things that China fears is a unified Korean Peninsula under the American
military umbrella with US troops there.
If you go back in the study of international relations, especially ... This is very popular
in the great game era, and the European politics in the 1800s, buffer states are really important.
Buffer states make [00:28:00] states feel secure from their enemies.
If there's a piece of territory there, it's a measure of protection.
If China's mostly concerned about a unified Korean Peninsula with the American military
forces there, because it doesn't want US military forces on it's border, one thing that we could
do in terms of negotiating settlement to the North Korean issue, or leveraging China to
get more involved [00:28:30] in a constructive way on Pyongyang, we could offer a change
to the US and South Korean alliance, and perhaps pulling away from our military presence there.
That's a situation in which we could reach a more peaceful situation, some kind of peace
agreement, some kind of grand bargain between the United States, North Korea, South Korea,
and China; but it's being held back because China's main hangup is that US forces are
in [00:29:00] the region.
That's just one example.
There are others, though.
We don't need forward deployed military bases to keep us safe, and we don't need them to
make the world more peaceful.
Trevor Burrus: Kind of dovetailing on Aaron's question a little bit.
I was reading your paper, trying to be a neocon-ish person as I read it.
I could see the lines that they thought were laughable.
[00:29:30] One of your lines is, 'The rise in expansionist European power bent on a continental
domination is nowhere on the horizon.'
Isn't that what they would have said in say, 1930?
Isn't that one of these famous last words things that when we're talking about Europe
pulling out Germany, for example, as I said.
I know we can get later you think some bases are worse than others, and maybe Germany's
not top of your list; but if you're totally against the forward deployment, then we're
talking about getting out of [00:30:00] Germany, too.
I think history has shown that it's generally a bad idea to let European powers grow their
militaries and figure out and fight a war that is total destruction.
We shouldn't just be blindly saying, "This is not a concern.
We'll get out of there."
John Glaser: Yeah, I don't think today is comparable to the era in the lead-up to World
War I or in the era in the lead-up to World War II.
Europe is one of the most stable and peaceful [00:30:30] continents in the world.
It's a really safe and rich bit of territory.
Since World War II, European countries have developed all kinds of institutional elements
of cooperation, economic integration.
They have close political and diplomatic overlaps, in terms of how they perceive their interests.
It really is a demonstration of how things can become pacified [00:31:00] in a political
and cultural way after the devastation of the cataclysms of the first and second World
War.
I don't think there's really anyone that I'm aware of in the literature who points out
that Germany is a risk of a growing power that's going to gobble up it's neighbors and
start to gain a hegemonic influence on the European continent.
I think today, people would more likely to be pointing to Russia as a concern, as a power
[00:31:30] that wants to expand and gobble up other countries.
The problem with that is that their GDP is about 1.3 trillion, which is roughly like
Spain's.
The main thing that you need to build up military power is economic power.
Russia just doesn't have it.
They're a declining power in a lot of ways.
They have an aging population.
They have all kinds of internal problems that prevent them from being able to project power
in distant regions.
Their actions in Georgia, [00:32:00] Ukraine, and Syria lately, have actually bogged them
down in problematic conflicts that they don't quite see a way out of.
They have nuclear weapons, and that protects them, but they don't really have the power
right now to start gobbling up and become a European hegemony.
The main thing you have to look at, if you're concerned about a rising hegemony is the nature
of the regime, the balance of power, ... because the Western Europe [00:32:30] checks Russia's
power because they're more powerful and richer ... and the economic power and military power
of the states in question.
I think if you look at that, it's pretty clear that we don't need to have a permanent presence
there to prevent that kind of contingency.
It's like we had, in the past, basically we served as a balancer of last resort.
When other powers, European powers in particular, found that they couldn't manage a [00:33:00]
rogue nation on their own, then we would come in and balance.
That was a very wise and strategic and cost-efficient way to manage the balance of power.
Instead, now the dominant theory is we have to always be there to prevent this from ever
happening again.
If it happens, we'll have plenty of lead time.
I think we can easily deploy quickly, if we think we need to.
Trevor Burrus: If you were making the case [00:33:30] for, to a person who did not accept
... I think a pretty mainstream foreign policy view right now, even amongst ... well, some
conservatives.
They don't accept the fullness of your critique of American involvement abroad, but they think
we've done too.
They weren't a fan of Iraq, maybe they think we should get out of Afghanistan.
So when Trump said we've been doing too much abroad, that resonated with them.
But then to say, "Okay, therefore we should take every military base away," is like, 'Okay,
that's too strong.'
[00:34:00] We're going for a compromise position, and when you do this in your paper, you talk
about other technologies.
Maybe we do need to get there in three days, but we have aircraft carriers, we have planes
that can fly from Missouri to the Middle East and back.
If you were making the case for dramatically lessening how many bases we have and still
being able to accomplish the military objectives that a lot of people think that we should
have [00:34:30] the capabilities, even if we shouldn't use it as much, how would you
make that case for say, 400 bases rather than 800?
Which ones would you first say we got to get out of because they're not worth it?
What technologies can still let us be somewhat of a military hegemony, but without making
other people mad, without putting our troops in danger?
How would you rank the bases?
How would you adjust our military capability to still behave in the world?
John Glaser: We just talked about Europe.
I think Europe is one of the most stable, peaceful, and [00:35:00] rich places in the
world.
That makes it a very good candidate to pull US military bases out of.
We see eye-to-eye with most Europeans on how things ought to be on domestic liberal reforms,
and foreign policy, and stuff like that.
They're really rich, and powerful, and can defend themselves.
They can uphold the role that the United States now upholds in the region, if we were to leave.
That's a good test case.
[00:35:30] There are less stable areas.
I talked about the Korean Peninsula, for example, and of course, the Middle East.
I think reducing overall our military bases and maintaining a few, like the major ones
that we have in say, Japan, would allow us rapid contingency response to deal with any
operational contingency that might come our way.
The other important thing is what you were saying [00:36:00] is that our travel ... The
technology that we have these days, to travel really quickly, and bomb from great distances,
really allow us to engage in any type of mission that we think is necessary.
The only thing that really prevents rapid deployment of massive mobilization of military
forces, withdrawing from all bases would make that quite difficult.
The [00:36:30] argument there I would make is that it's not necessarily a bad thing to
rob the executive branch of the ability to quickly intervene in any conflict in which
they think they ought to intervene; and counter to constitutional ideas about checks and balances,
and giving the executive branch more options to deploy more quickly is kind of ... does
violence, so to speak, to constitutional principles.
Aaron Powell: [00:37:00] You've argued a few times that we are ... one of the effects that
our bases have is subsidizing the defense of other nations, because they don't have
to then pour their own money into defending themselves.
Do we know how much nations would react to us taking away those subsidies?
Can we just assume that if we pulled our bases out of Europe, the Europeans would build up
their militaries an equal amount, or the South Koreans [00:37:30] would?
John Glaser: It's hard to say.
I think you have to look at discrete examples.
Certainly it's the case, I think, that Eastern European countries, ones that are really close
to the Russian border, would start to boost military spending.
The Baltics already spend more as a percentage of their economy than a lot of Western European
countries do.
It's hard to say whether or not places like Germany, France, Britain, would boost military
spending if they didn't [00:38:00] have American protection.
One of the main reasons is because they don't face any threats.
In the United States, it's become a bit of a pathology to overspend on military assets.
We need more weapons, more equipment, more troops, more bases, et cetera, because we
have this expansive definition of our national interests.
If the Europeans don't spend a lot on their military, it might be because [00:38:30] we
subsidize their defense, or it might be because they don't really face any threats.
Who's going to invade Germany right now?
Who is the candidate that's going to bomb Berlin?
It's not really in the cards in the policy-relevant future.
They might inch up slightly, but it's not a guarantee that they would boost spending.
Aaron Powell: How does terrorism factor into this, because ... so ISIS has threatened to
invade Italy; but were there prophecies, right?
Berlin, [00:39:00] Germany has been attacked.
I don't know Berlin specifically has been attacked, but does that change the equation?
Do we need, because there's these ... there are threats in a way that there weren't from
just troops marching across a border?
John Glaser: Permanent peacetime overseas military bases are just about the worst tool
imaginable to prevent some guy driving into a crowd of people in East France.
The operations [00:39:30] and attacks that ISIS and other similar groups have taken in
Europe in recent years are mostly lone wolf attacks.
Sometimes there's some tenuous connection to some base in the Middle East that was directed
from the official group; but mostly, these are really low level violence attacks.
They kill a few people and it's very tragic, but there's literally no way to conceive of
our permanent overseas military presence as preventing that [00:40:00] or doing anything
to mitigate it, or responding to it.
These are just low level attacks.
Of course, the question of terrorism at a bird's eye view, it should be noted as has
been noted on this podcast in previous episodes, it's a small threat that we face from terrorism.
Every year since 9/11, I think the number of deaths in the United States from terrorism
is about 6.
Every year since 9/11, the average number of deaths from being struck by lightening
is roughly [00:40:30] 50.
This is a manageable threat.
It's not a war to be won, it's a problem to be managed.
Trevor Burrus: But if, on the flip side as opposed to trying to stop people driving trucks
through crowds, which I agree is probably impossible unless you want to live in a police
state; but if we want to hit terrorists in a strategic fashion, which whether it's through
drones, or bringing in special forces, and landing them, and seeing a threat.
Maybe we see that they have nuclear material or something like this, [00:41:00] it seems
that we would want to be flying out of bases in Italy, bases in Germany, bases in Qatar.
That would be better.
John Glaser: The Rand Corporation did a study on this.
What they concluded is that the time benefit of doing a bombing mission from say, Germany
into the Middle East, is so neg liable as to not very much be worth it.
It shouldn't be the justification that our bases in Europe need to be there so that we
can quickly [00:41:30] bomb the Middle East, because the time benefit is just so negligible.
For example, during the first Gulf War in 1991, we flew bombing missions from Louisiana,
in round trip missions, that were refueled in the air in under 30 hours.
We can so quickly bomb targets in the Middle East, really at a whim, that the foreign military
bases that [00:42:00] enable those logistically, enable those missions often times right now,
are just not necessary to complete the mission.
Trevor Burrus: I can picture someone with military experience listening to this and
thinking that this ... In your paper, you compare five days of response versus seven
days, if we were coming from mainland United States, or you said that Guam and Diego Garcia.
Guam is a territory, so we don't have destabilization concerns; so you're okay with Guam, and you're
okay with Diego Garcia ... which is a British territory.
[00:42:30] If you have a two day difference between flying from Louisiana to the Middle
East, and what's the big deal?
I could see in the military strategy being like, "Who does this guy think he is?
Two days is an eternity in military speed.
Two days is where ... Gettysburg day one to Gettysburg day three."
John Glaser: Yeah, so it's important to make the distinction here.
The couple of days difference is referring to a brigade combat team deploying to a foreign
region.
That [00:43:00] amounts to roughly 5,000 troops, lost of heavy equipment and vehicles, et cetera.
That takes a little bit longer, but not long enough to prevent us from being able to head
off some kind of major military conflict between militaries.
The bombing missions don't take a couple of extra days.
Bombing missions take an extra hour, roughly; maybe a couple hours.
We can easily field ... the time difference is negligible for bombing missions.
If [00:43:30] you want to get really technical, we have 11 or 12 aircraft carriers, which
can be all over the world and all over the oceans, and we can fly bombing missions from
them as well.
Trevor Burrus: Would you make a trade-off if you were trying to negotiate a bill, and
you were saying, "Okay, let's take 400 bases away.
We still have 400, and let's build three more aircraft carriers."
Would that be a trade-off you'd be willing to make, in the sense of saying that, "Okay,
I'll agree we need strike capability, but here are the 400 [00:44:00] bases that are
costing the most in terms of our safety, anger towards the United States."
John Glaser: Yeah.
Trevor Burrus: "I'll give you three aircraft carriers."
John Glaser: I'm a man of compromise.
I'm happy with that trade.
I don't think we need the extra aircraft carriers.
Trevor Burrus: "And a destroyer to be named later in draft- [crosstalk 00:44:13]."
John Glaser: Yeah, name the destroy after me.
I'll be really happy to make that trade.
I don't think ... We have more aircraft carriers than anyone else in the world.
A lot more.
We can put them in places all over the earth's [00:44:30] oceans to easily deploy.
We don't need the extra, but if that's the compromise I'm faced with, I'm kind of happy
to do that.
One thing about telling this military people, I got the idea for keeping bases in just Guam
and Diego Garcia from a friend of mine in the military.
I think the hawks that really insist that we must maintain a global military presence
at all [00:45:00] times are frequently not from the military.
For bureaucratic interests, military officials tend to insist that we don't shutdown bases.
Military people in general, people that serve in the military, I don't think are necessarily
by definition, insistent on the American pacifier thesis.
Aaron Powell: Are there any, or how many bases are there I guess that even if all of these
arguments for why we should have [00:45:30] the US military spread all over the place
are true, or just egregious examples of this base doesn't accomplish anything.
Trevor Burrus: We give you a big red pin and a list of all the bases and American assets,
and you say, "Okay John, cross 'em off."
John Glaser: What I'll say is that there's a lot of tiny bases in strategically insignificant
places that we could just easily do away with.
These would be the first to go.
There's a lot of bases that we have in a couple dozen, [00:46:00] or just over a dozen African
countries.
They're really small.
They don't have that many personnel there.
They're often hubs to train militaries in those countries.
We don't need those.
They don't make us safer.
They don't make Africa safer.
We have bases in Central and South America.
Those aren't needed.
If you talk about getting places quickly, certainly we can deploy from bases in the
United States to anywhere within our own hemisphere much quicker than [00:46:30] we can from distances
far, far, far and away.
In the Americas and in Africa, I think those would be the first to go.
Least significant.
Trevor Burrus: Going forward, a lot of people criticize libertarian foreign policy a lot.
We get it from both the left and the right.
We come in here, we say, "No more foreign ... forward deployment of the massive scale,
at least."
You made some very good points, but how do we start trying to convince people that this
is generally a good idea [00:47:00] and we can draw it down.
We don't have to go all the way to our principled level, but draw it down.
What sort of impediments do you see coming in that makes that difficult?
Other than the obvious disagreement with you.
John Glaser: I worry about how lengthy this answer will be.
The first point I'd make is that there's something strange about the way foreign policy is handled
in Washington DC.
The debate in foreign policy in Washington DC represents the merest sliver [00:47:30]
of the debate that occurs on foreign policy in the academic community more generally.
For example, the foremost proponents of our current strategy in academia are two guys
named Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth.
I had them here at the Cato Institute for a book forum in March.
According to them, they feel that they're in the minority in the academic community.
Let's just say at least 50% of academics in the international relations field [00:48:00]
are somewhat sympathetic to the Cato view of foreign policy.
Now, the Cato view on foreign policy is like an alien spaceship in Washington DC.
We are lone wolves.
Nobody cares to hear about this, both left and right.
There's a rough consensus on what US foreign policy ought to be, but it doesn't represent
most of the other really solid academically inclined viewpoints on what the role of the
United States should be.
In terms of persuading people, I think [00:48:30] that's a key point to make, that there's something
weird about how foreign policy is done.
That partly gets to this issue of what are the interests that are influencing people
to disregard other valid points of view.
There are all kinds.
I found this really interesting.
If you go back to 1970, there was a congressional investigation called 'Security Agreements
and [00:49:00] Commitments Abroad.'
It explained why the strategic use of US military bases abroad is never seriously scrutinized,
and I'm going to quote from it, if the listeners will forgive me.
Quote, "Once an American overseas base is established, it takes on a life of it's own.
Original missions may become outdated, but new missions are developed, not only with
the intent of keeping the facility going, but often actually to enlarge it.
Within the government departments most directly concerned, state department and defense department,
[00:49:30] we found little initiative to reduce or eliminate any of these overseas facilities;
which is only to be expected since they would be recommending a reduction in their own position."
The same logic holds today.
Entrenched interests both within government and outside it insist upon the current forward
deployed military strategy.
That creates basically no political incentive to propose changes to it.
But I think it's something we need to [00:50:00] consider.
I know that this is a radical proposal.
I did that partly to provoke people, but America's inherent safety, at the very least, should
incentivize people to scrutinize our overseas military base presence.
Aaron Powell: Thanks for listening.
This episode of Free Thoughts was produced by Tess Terrible and Evan Banks.
To learn more, visit us at www.libertarianism.org.
-------------------------------------------
Домашняя одежда. Как выглядеть дома красиво женщинам 50+ - Duration: 7:51.
For more infomation >> Домашняя одежда. Как выглядеть дома красиво женщинам 50+ - Duration: 7:51. -------------------------------------------
How To Put On False Eyelashes For Beginners | In-Depth Tips & Tricks | #BeautyBite - Duration: 7:38.
what's up guys welcome to the cult curator where I help you navigate the
overwhelming world of beauty one tutorial at a time my name is Sonya and
in this week's Beauty bite I'm showing you how to apply false lashes like a pro
if you're new to false lashes the process can be extremely frustrating
which is why I'm going to break it down for you in this step-by-step tutorial
alright so you just need three things when you're applying your lashes the
first thing is the lashes your choice whatever lash that are comfortable with
or that you prefer to wear the second thing is a lot blue and the last thing
is a way to apply the lashes so either your fingers regular tweezers or a la
shop locator so if you're new playing false lashes and you struggle with
applying them the first thing that I recommend is choosing an eyelash that
has a very thin watch band so you can see I'm the one that I'm going to be
wearing for this tutorial it's a clear very thin watch band and the style that
I'm using is Andrea number 92 and just for comparison these are the House of
lashes iconic and you can see that this has a very thick lash band that's gonna
be a lot harder to work with the next thing is lash glue my favorite is the
Revlon precision clear lash adhesive this is really nice because it comes
with a little wand like this which makes it really easy to just apply directly
onto the lashes duo is another popular lash glue that a lot of people would
recommend I personally don't like it and I find that it's a lot more difficult to
work with you have to it doesn't have a little wand like the Revlon one so it's
just more frustrating to work with in my opinion so if you're beginner I would
definitely recommend the Revlon precision lash glue the last thing is
the way that you apply your lashes you can use your fingers but my fingers are
very short and stubby and I don't have long nails so it's difficult for me to
apply lashes that way the next thing is to use regular tweezers that you
used to pluck your eyebrows those when I use them I always end up hooking my
eyelid and it's just painful and frustrating for me to do what so I don't
use that my favorite way to apply lashes is using a la shop locator like this I
find this just easiest because it's made specifically for applying lashes you can
see that it looks like a pair of tweezers but the ends aren't pointy and
they are a lot longer so it just really does a good job of applying lashes in my
opinion it makes the whole thing a lot easier step 2 is to take the lashes off
of the container you want to be careful when you're pulling lashes off of the
plastic because it is glued on see the plastics and you can rip the lashes if
you pull too hard so it's important to be gentle alright - step 3 is to cut the
lashes so that they fit your eye typically when lashes come out of the
package they're going to be longer than your actual eyes so you want to measure
by placing the watch on your eye to see where you need to cut it another note is
to make sure that you don't cut off too much of the lash it's better to cut off
in small sections instead of doing a whole chunk and realizing that the lash
is now too short before you apply your lashes you want to make sure that you
curl your natural lashes and add some mascara this will help them blend into
the falsies a lot better and make it look a lot more natural I like to curl
them not everyone does this but I have very straight lashes so I feel like
curling them makes them blend it a lot it's better and you can use any mascara
that you want it really doesn't matter because it's not going to be really
showing up that much but I'm using the Milani lash trifecta alright so when I'm
applying logically onto the lashes I like to take the lashes on the
applicator like this and I'm just going to take the wand and run a thin coat
along the lash band you don't want too much product you just
want a little bit just enough to coat it and for the inner and outer corner I
actually like to apply it a little bit more like a little kind of bubble of
glue not too much but just like more than you did on the rest of the wash
because those areas tend to lift up throughout the day you can see that
there's a thin layer of lash glue and the ends have a little bit more lash
glue now you just want to wait a couple of seconds for the lash glue to dry up a
little bit that way it gets a little bit tacky and it doesn't slide around your I
love it so I know applying falsies I like to tilt my head back a little bit
and look down my eyes are still open and I didn't see myself in the mirror
perfectly but I like to do it just enough so that my eyelid is increasing
anymore now when I'm applying my lashes I like to hold it on the lash itself not
the band because that's where the glue is and when I'm taking it onto my eye I
like to bring it from above and then drop it down onto my lid like that it's
important to do that instead of coming straight on like this because then I
brush my lashes I end up with glue all over the place it gets stuck and it
doesn't sit on the lid as nicely so now I'm going to go in and apply the lashes
and at first you just want to kind of rest it
it's not applied onto my lid yet but it's just kind of sitting there so that
it makes it easier for me to move it around and I like to work with the outer
corner and attach it with a lock shop locator I like to push the falsies into
my lash like this so I'm just going along and pushing them together and as
this is drying you want to kind of push the lashes upwards like this so that
they sit up I don't know if you can see this on camera but now there's a little
bit of lash glue residue on my applicator so before I move into the
other eye I like to actually take a makeup wipe or some makeup remover and
clean it off that way the lash applicator doesn't stick to my other
lash now I'm just going to apply the other blush onto my lid you want the
lash on your skin and not on your actual lashes because when you pull it off that
will take your actual lashes off also and once you do that you're all finished
and that's how you apply lashes alright guys that does it for this tutorial I
hope you enjoyed it just remember that when you're applying lashes for the
first time or even the first few times that it's going to be frustrating and
it's going to be messy these are normal experiences that most people go through
so you're not alone and don't feel discouraged because with practice and
these tips you'll be able to start applying lashes like a pro so if these
tips were helpful if they were and you enjoyed this video don't forget to give
it a thumbs up and if you're new to my channel and you love makeup don't forget
to subscribe so that you don't miss out on any of my tips
tricks that you can easily add to your makeup routine that deserve for this
video but I post every Tuesday and Thursday so stay tuned for the next one
bye
-------------------------------------------
Union General Sherman assaults Atlanta - 8/31/1864 - Duration: 0:59.
Today in military history, 1864.
Union General William T. Sherman launches
the final assault on Atlanta, Georgia.
Sherman's Atlanta campaign began in the spring of that year,
facing off against Confederate generals
John B. Hood, William Hardy, and Joseph E. Johnston.
His goal was to capture the city and cut off
Southern supply lines.
In what would become known as the Battle of Jonesboro,
Confederate troops attempted to block Sherman's army
and were soundly defeated,
forcing them to retreat from Atlanta.
It was a demoralizing loss for the South.
Sherman's men would hold the city until November,
when he began the infamous march to the sea.
You wanna know what happened yesterday in military history?
Click right here.
You wanna know what happened tomorrow?
Make sure you subscribe.
(intense music)
-------------------------------------------
Here's My Canada: My Canada - Duration: 0:30.
Imagine a world where love is a choice
and your identity is for you to decide.
Where all cultures are united and
celebrated all together. Where history
lives aside modernity, and nature live
aside the city, and change is not feared
but rather embraced. This is not an
illusion, nor a delusion.
This is my Canada.
-------------------------------------------
Beating Addiction - Smoking Drinking & Drugs (Self Help) - Duration: 4:49.
Ninh explains, Stop Drinking & Smoking NOW - Beating your addiction to Alcohol, Cigarettes
and Drugs Smoking.
Drinking.
Drugs.
Three of the most common and problematic addictions known to man.
If you haven't already watched my video on understanding addiction – I highly recommend
you watch that video first before carrying on with the rest of this video.
I bet you're the kind of person who drinks too much, right?
Can't stop smoking even with those annoying patches?
And you just can't seem to shake off that annoying heroin addiction, right?
Doing these things can really damaging to your health, and I don't need to show you
what that looks like, do I?
Okay then… ohhh, urgh, argh!
Remember, if you did watch my video on understanding addiction you know that you've attached
strong feelings to a thought, with the feeling of needing comfort to be happy.
And this results in a behaviour of you medicating yourself with cigarettes, alcohol and drugs.
Every time you think of a thought that requires some form of comfort or that requires you
to want to be happy, you'll reach out for those substances.
And this happens every single time.
You've become good at this, to the point where you don't even consciously think about
it.
All you have to do is feel a little bad and low and behold you've got a smoke and a
drink in your hand.
It's so easy, you can buy these substances anywhere!
You feel that you need this in order to cope.
You don't.
You just think that you do.
Now it's time to break the habit.
Let's break the association between you thinking a thought, and the emotional need
for a cigarette, alcohol or drugs.
Every time you get a thought in your head and the feeling of wanting a cigarette, wanting
a drink or shooting up, I want you to say 'STOP – I do not want these thoughts.
I do not want this stuff.
Thank you very much, Trash delete.'
When you do this, I want you to sweep your eyes from right to up to left, you're going
in a circular motion, and I want you to imagine the very thing you're addicted to going around,
until you put that into the bin and out of your mind.
Do this EVERY SINGLE TIME that you even think that you want a drink, a smoke or some drugs.
'STOP – I do not want these thoughts.
I do not want this stuff.
Thank you very much, Trash delete.'
'STOP – I do not want these thoughts.
I do not want this stuff.
Thank you very much, Trash delete.'
'STOP – I do not want these thoughts.
I do not want this stuff.
Thank you very much, Trash delete.'
What you're doing is that you're breaking the association between thought and feeling
and you are commanding your brain to not react in the way that it used to.
You might be constantly doing it at first, but after a while, you'll be saying the
phrase less and less, as your brain relearns to think about it's dependency on cigarettes,
alcohol and drugs disappears.
And if you can do it for one day, you can do it for two days, a week, a month, a year.
In addition to this, I also want you to do the following:
1) Form a healthy environment.
If the environment around you is one filled with happiness, love, and variety, you've
no need to medicate yourself with cigarettes, alcohol and drugs.
Make sure that you've got a happy fulfilling life and that you want to stay healthy so
that you can enjoy it some more.
You'll be too busy enjoying life and being surrounded by people who care to even think
about that stuff anymore.
2) Get rid of any of those substances . You can't take the stuff if you don't have
it.
So get that stuff out of your house 3) Avoid triggers – if you go to places
that make you want it, such as a restaurants pubs & clubs, – it might be worthwhile to
stay away from them for the time being.
Remember, we're trying to reduce the chance that you reach for your substances.
And if you do fail, it's not the end of the world.
Get back on that horse and try again.
You've probably made more progress than you think and I know your body might react
adversely to stopping cold turkey.
But your mind controls your body … focus on the mind and the body follows.
Pretty soon, you'll be enjoying life, without the need for substances.
If you have have found this video helpful, please be sure to like share and subscribe.
Download my free ebook here, follow me on social media there AND if you've got any
questions or comments, let me know in the comments section below.
Ninh Ly - www.ninh.co.uk - @NinhLyUK
-------------------------------------------
TRANSFER RAPORU - GALATASARAY TRANSFER HABERLERİ - 31 AĞUSTOS 2017 - Youtube - Duration: 27:50.
For more infomation >> TRANSFER RAPORU - GALATASARAY TRANSFER HABERLERİ - 31 AĞUSTOS 2017 - Youtube - Duration: 27:50. -------------------------------------------
4 Dead in Ohio, Our Selective Memory of the 1960s | Civil War II - Duration: 5:34.
The 1960's were a dark time.
As some of our more panicked pundits look at our modern era, they see parallels, and
they try to take it further.
They see the outlines of a new American civil war in this troubled era.
This week we're showing just how ridiculous this civil war talk is, by taking a look at
history.
Today we take on the 1960's.
It may be fading a bit now, but throughout my life the 1960's have been a dominant
part of US mythology.
It's a baby boomer epic of sex drugs and rock n' roll.
It features strife and suffering, the evils of Nixon and Vietnam, and the redemption of
greater rights for African Americans and the success of other liberation movements.
Elements of this mythology are very true, but the actual history has been forgotten.
Panicked pundits of today imagine that we're in a similar time of struggle and uncertainty
today.
That's where a lot of the civil war talk comes from.
It's nuts.
In truth the 1960's were a lot worse than we remember, and we are in nowhere near that
much trouble today.
The confusion starts with the fact that when we talk about the 1960's we're not actually
talking about the years between 1960 and 1970.
The Civil Rights movement expands far back into the 1950's, and the anti-war movement
extends into the 1970's.
Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court's landmark decision against school segregation,
and Nixon's resignation form decent book-ends to the era.
We remember some of the horrors of this era, but the bigger ones have been forgotten.
I began this video with a Neil Young song about the killings at Kent State.
Four white kids were killed by National Guardsmen at a protest gone wrong on a university campus
in Ohio.
When I talk with older friends and family about how the 1960's were much more violent
than today, this is the main thing they remember.
Kent State was horrible, and I don't want to minimize it, but it's easy to imagine
it happening today.
We were one jammed gun away from the same number of deaths in Charlottesville earlier
this month.
The 1960's were so much worse than Kent State.
Your urban real estate agent can tell you about it.
Neighborhoods in multiple American cities were destroyed.
We're not talking about the broken windows and spilled trash cans of an Antifa protest,
we're talking about entire city blocks burning down.
Los Angeles, Detroit, Washington, DC, Chicago and as many as a hundred other cities had
serious riots.
Many of these cities experienced massive property destruction, and some riots featured dozens
of deaths.
According to one historian, Newark, New Jersey was particularly horrific, featuring gangs
of cops running around shooting black people at random in retaliation for the death of
one of their own.
The death toll there came to 26.
Yet outside of the big assassinations, the main deaths we remember are those four dead
white kids in Ohio.
For a while I thought this was an artifact of my affluent, suburban upbringing, but it
goes farther than that.
There's a similar issue with Chicago.
Everybody remembers the fact that cops beat up some white kids outside of the Democratic
National Convention in August 1968, killing nobody.
But the riots that killed 11 people in Chicago earlier that year are mostly forgotten.
This makes the need for a Black Lives Matter movement pretty clear doesn't it?
The fascination with rich white martyrs has become the official story, well outside of
the affluent suburbs.
Last week I was watched an episode of Dave Chappelle's new Netflix comedy show.
If I remember it correctly, he too references Kent State, rather than Newark, or Detroit
or Watts.
We pretend that we're living through a new 1960's today because we're not remembering
the 1960's accurately.
We focus on the fact that there are wars in both eras, but we ignore the fact that at
the height of the Vietnam war, US soldiers died at the rate of an entire War on Terror
every six months or so.
This sort of thing is dangerous.
We are nowhere near there yet, but if we keep telling ourselves we're in an unprecedented
crisis, we could very well build one.
Donald Trump was elected because people managed to convince themselves we are living in a
time of crisis.
We're really not.
History is important
Thanks for watching, please subscribe, and you might also want to
sign up for my e-mail list.
If you do, you'll get a free essay!
-------------------------------------------
Test Stream - XboxOne - Fallout 4 - Duration: 3:52.
For more infomation >> Test Stream - XboxOne - Fallout 4 - Duration: 3:52. -------------------------------------------
AIRSOFT GAME –Assault Epique - Duration: 5:50.
For more infomation >> AIRSOFT GAME –Assault Epique - Duration: 5:50. -------------------------------------------
10 TIPS TO DECLUTTER YOUR HOME // change your life! - Duration: 5:27.
hello welcome to my channel so for today's video I'm going to do something
a little bit different typically I talk about health and nutrition because I am
a nutritionist but for today we're going to talk about something lifestyle
related because I think to have a healthy life you need a happy life and a happy
life comes from happy lifestyle. So in this video I'm just going to discuss things
that I've learned over the last few years about decluttering. Let's get
started. Number one start decluttering in the room that you use most often it can
be tempting to declutter a room that you don't really use a smaller room but when
you declutter that room you're not going to feel the sense of accomplishment
you're not going to want to go and declutter the rest of your home so I
always recommend start off by decluttering the room that you use the
most often which for me is my kitchen and I live in my kitchen and once that's
done I feel really good I feel a sense of accomplishment like yes I did
something let's tackle the rest of the house now number two ask yourself three
questions while you declutter does this item give you joy so this is a concept
that I picked up for Marie Kondo's book and it's all about having stuff around
you that gives you joy so if an item doesn't make you happy
you shouldn't even bother keeping it in your home number two is this item
functional does it work does it serve a purpose number three have you used this
item in the last year now if you can answer yes to any of these questions
keep the item if you can't answer yes to any of them maybe that item deserves
discarding tip number three deal with paper clutter
weekly so all those Flyers and magazines and newspapers and God knows how many
letters you get in the mail deal with them weekly otherwise they pile up and
then you have a lot of things to deal with the end here
if you're buying something new think it through
now whenever I'm looking to buy something new I put it on a wish list
first it stays on that wish list for at least a week or several weeks and if I
come back a week later and I still want the item that means I really love it
otherwise I just cross it off the list tip number five do a closet cleanse so
this sounds really daunting and to be honest it does take some time but it
will change your life trust me I've had a friend who did a closet cleanse but I
recommended it to her and she is loving her new closet because it takes her much
less time to get ready and it's not as cluttered so what do I mean by a closet
cleanse what I mean is figure it out a closet that works for your lifestyle
think about it we all spend a lot of time in our
closets first thing in the morning trying to figure out what to wear and if
you can streamline that process by only having items that you truly love and
only having items that really easily mix and match you're gonna make your life a
lot easier tackle those junk drawer so we all have
Junkers these are drawers for things that don't have a home junk drawers
aren't the problem it's when we never clean them and then
it's been a year and this is all sorts of stuff I have one junk drawer in my
house it's in the entrance area and I put all sorts of stuff in there that
doesn't have a home but every month I look into it and see if there's stuff
that can be discarded or stuff that can be moved to a new home
tip number seven don't eat the gifts that you don't use so we all get gifts
and some are sentimental so obviously keep those gifts don't really attach to
them and you don't know what to do they're not really for you but someone
else could use them sitter be gifting or consider donating the item so at least
someone else can use it keep the visual clutter to a minimum so
what do I mean by visual clutter it's the stuff that's all around your home on
your furniture and the decorative items and everyone's tolerance to visual
clutter is different what's clutter to you may not be cluttered to mean vice
versa tip number nine get your family support
so if you live in a household which is more than just you you are going to deal
with other people's clutter and if your family's not on board or the
decluttering you can declutter but it's not going to make enough of a difference
10 which is the final tip is review every year or every six months whatever
works for you I like to do a spring clean where I do a full decluttering
every year because you know what no matter how much you declutter the
clutter happens again it comes from somewhere so there you have it ten tips
to declutter your home and embrace minimalism in the process if you like
the video and you learn something you give it a thumbs up and don't forget to
subscribe thanks for watching I will see you in the next video
-------------------------------------------
How Interest Rates Affect Your Mortgage | Toronto Real Estate - Duration: 4:09.
Hi everyone Vlad here today we're going to talk about five reasons why recent interest rate increases may hurt you
and a few tips on what you can do about it a lot of you are asking yourselves a question of whether we were
or still are in a real estate bubble
and my simplistic and intuitive definition of a bubble would be if we had increases in housing prices that were in
double digits over an extended period of time followed by a very sharp decline over a few months then yes
Most likely that would be a bubble to me looking back at the events of 2017
they fit my simple definition of a housing bubble very well so my opinion is that yes we were in a
housing bubble and it's now burst as many of you may know in 2009
the Bank of Canada decided to drop interest rates to below one percent
and that started with the economic crisis the United States nearly brought world economies to a screeching halt what
followed in Canada and special in G.T.A.
Is that housing prices started growing at a tremendous pace far outstripping average household income the current rate
increase is from 0.5 to 0.75 on the surface it seems insignificant in fact it should be almost
negligible but
when you look at the effect on the psyche of the market participants it's quite dramatic prices for real estate in some
pockets in the G.T.A.
Have dropped by as much as 25% to 30% so let's talk about those five reasons that are promised if
you guys own a house and depending on the type of a mortgage you have whether you're on a fixed
or variable situation would be different if you're on a fixed you have obviously nothing to worry about for the term of
the mortgage if you're in the variable most likely a monthly payments will not change in that year ratio of payments to
words or contributions rather towards the principle in the interest may change
but the payment will remain the same for those of you on a different contract which is less likely
or you will encounter less often is that the monthly outlay.
May actually go up a little bit number two if you have a lot of debt
and not a lot of savings what a lot of people believe is that the announcement in July was the beginning of a series of
interest rate increases in this is correct that over the next few years we'll see interest rates of a much higher mark
than they are right now so what that will mean is that it will make it more difficult for you to make your mortgage
payments if you have other debt. so get rid of it if you can for the next year
or two. Now I want to address the younger generation for the younger generation this is really the only reality that they've
known in the last seven to eight years in that the money was almost free
and the housing prices were out of control look back at what happened in the G.T.A.
In the last ten, twenty and thirty years
and you can calm yourself things will change in the years to come first all real real estate prices always go up over time
and this pattern has been evident over the last forty to fifty years so take a look at it there's nothing to worry
about. Things will change
and things will change for the better next point student loans if you guys carrying a student loan again depending on
whether it's fixed a variable.
Your situation will be different for fixed you have nothing to worry about the variable variable your monthly payments
will go up unsubstantially but that will go up and lastly I want to say that try
and keep your credit score as high as possible in respect to what's happening with the economy with a real is the point
that you will afford yourselves best the best rates whether with the five Canadian chartered banks if your credit
rating is above seven hundred keep it at the mark
or above if you can that's it that's all the material I wanted to pass on to you thank you
and as always we transform dreams into reality through strategic homeownership
and real estate investment please look up information on this topic and many more on our website
www.MitraMovesYou.com
or feel free to reach out to us directly at 416-835-0038. Buy for now!
-------------------------------------------
Secretary Price addresses inaugural ISMICC Meeting - Duration: 14:07.
It is great to be with Dr. Carson this morning and I want to thank him for coming to this
meeting and all of the representatives — I think that Dr. Carson's presence here demonstrates
clearly President Trump and this administration's commitment to the challenge of serious mental
illness in America.
It's always nice to have another surgeon in the room.
I want to thank all of the members of the committee, as well.
All of you could be doing all sorts of things and you are here because of the incredible
importance of this issue.
And this an historic committee.
It has a significant charge and we'll go through that.
I also want to thank Kana Enomoto for her incredible work as Assistant Administrator
of SAMHSA, and her team for putting together and selecting this committee.
She has done remarkable work I don't know if she is here.
Is Kana here?
She has done a great, great job.
There is no time like now for the work of this committee to begin.
We are badly badly in need of a fresh examination of how we treat serious mental illness in
America.
This is well-timed because we have already identified three clinical challenges - priorities,
for the Department of Health and Human Services – The opioid crisis, childhood obesity,
and severe mental illness.
Each of our priorities here at the Department presents a complicated challenge, where our
policies are coming up short currently, and where real progress would be a truly meaningful
victory for the health and well-being of the American people.
In thinking about why we are here today, and why we have made serious mental illness a
top priority, I want to ask you to think about three numbers as we begin: Ten, ten, and ten.
10 million, 10 years, and ten times.
According to the latest data from SAMHSA, 10 million Americans in a given year live
with a serious mental illness.
As you know, that is defined as a diagnosable mental illness of sufficient duration, resulting
in serious functional impairment that interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.
This term most often used to describe schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and/or severe depression.
So many of these 10 million Americans are, quite simply, being failed by the system and
the policies we have today: one-third of those 10 million received no treatment in the last
year.
This is like letting one-third of all Americans with cancer or diabetes go without treatment.
Those who do get treatment too often receive it inconsistently or incompletely—far from
the standard of care we would demand for any other chronic disease.
The consequences are simply devastating, to those 10 million yes, but also to their families
who love them and the communities that they enrich.
years.
10 SAMHSA estimates that Americans with serious mental illness are likely to live lives that
are 8 to 10 years shorter in duration than the larger population.
By some estimates—including by Joe Parks, whom we have here on this committee—that
number, depending on how you measure it, may be as high as 25 years.
That is a tremendous amount of suffering—suffering that we all know how to prevent.
The diseases we are discussing today are, for now, by and large incurable.
But they are treatable, and with the knowledge we have today, recovery is the expectation.
As a physician, it is just so incredibly frustrating for me to see a health condition that we know
how to treat go untreated.
Letting a serious mental illness go untreated has devastating consequences: not just shorter
life spans, but lives often stricken with the inability to hold down a job, to maintain
friendships, to display the affection we all share for our loved ones.
Here's the third number, 10.
10 times.
According to one report, 10 times more Americans with serious mental illness are in prison——than
in psychiatric facilities, hospitals or institutions–What a striking depiction of how we have deprived
so many Americans of the treatment they need, and the tragic consequences it has had.
We replaced an imperfect and sometimes cruel system of institutionalization with a system
that is in many cases more cruel—and failed to equip families and healthcare providers
with what they need to fix it.
We could run through all the other raft of statistics: the rates of terrible mental and
physical comorbidities that Americans with serious mental illness have, the share of
Americans with serious mental illness who face homelessness.
You all know the situation and the numbers very well.
One of the challenges we have however is that America doesn't know those numbers.
In too many places, this has been a silent epidemic.
For a while, people have referred to one of our other priorities the opioid crisis as
a "silent epidemic," but * thanks to the hard work of so many folks, including many
in the behavioral health community, that is much less true today than it was just a few
short years ago—the suffering caused by opioid addiction is better and better known
by the nation far and wide.
Americans with serious mental illness, however, have struggled in relative silence for decades.
But it's not for lack of trying by those who have suffered themselves or by the families
who have faced the challenges.
So many of you here today have done so incredibly much work to raise awareness about the challenges
of serious mental illness.
One of them is Pete Earley, whose book, Crazy, helped educate me about this issue.
Pete, thank you for being here today, for representing parents of individuals and children
who struggle of schizophrenia.
You never look at the issue of mental health and how we run our mental healthcare system
the same way once you read a book like Pete's.
And you never look at it the same way after you've had a personal touch with the issue.
And all of us have.
My wife and mine, ours came a number of years ago when a* dear family friends of ours had
a child, who we watched grow up – Charles was his name– and he got to be 18, 19, 20
and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
And this family struggled for years to try and get him the right kind of treatment.
He was in and out institutions, in and out of prison.
He was in and out of home – back and forth-lived homeless for a long period of time.
And as so often happens, these stories end in very very tragic situations.
Charles woke up one morning and decided he needed to kill his father and himself.
And he did.
We are deeply committed to understanding how and why we have failed people like Charles
and Pete's family.
The system failed Charles and his family.
Our society failed Charles and his family and those stories are not unique.
This is going to require not just raising awareness, but defeating the prejudice and
apathy that weaken the way we treat this issue.
It also means understanding why our policies and practices have been failing, and replacing
them with better ones.
An important player in that whole process is Dr. Elinore McCance-Katz.
The old line here in Washington goes that personnel is policy.
I think it's safe to say we are all heartened by what portends for President Trump's decision
to name Dr. Elinore McCance-Katz America's first Assistant Secretary for Mental Health
and Substance Abuse.
The Assistant Secretary's position as you well know comes through the same law that
created this committee, the 21st Century Cures Act.
This is not the first commission that has ever been convened by a president to consider
the problem of serious mental illness as you well know.
You may remember President Jimmy Carter's commission on mental health or George W. Bush's
new freedom commission.
But this is an historic commission because it's the first standing committee created
to address this topic that's required to report to Congress on the federal government's
handling of serious mental illness.
And it will have the chance to work hand-in-hand with Dr. McCance-Katz, who will bring a new
level of authority to this issue, along with her own deep level of experience and expertise.
In fact, she's the first psychiatrist ever to be appointed to head SAMHSA.
She will be charged with working across our department, and across the federal government,
so that Americans with serious mental illness receive the highest standard of care we can
offer them, care that is deeply informed by our knowledge of science and medicine.
We are obviously big fans of Dr. McCance-Katz, but no one person can do it alone, not even
Dr. McCance-Katz.
That is where the rest of you come in.
You bring a wonderful range of experience to the challenge before us—some from your
personal lives, some from your professional lives, and some from a combination of both.
You have an understanding of the myriad issues that intersect with serious mental illness:
the unique ways these diseases interact with physical health, the special risk that they
place for America's veterans, the ways they can interfere with holding down a steady job,
the challenges these illnesses can present for law enforcement.
Your charge is threefold: One, reporting on the advances we are making
in treatment, recovery, and prevention for serious mental illnesse.
There has been steady progress in our understanding of these diseases over the past number of
decades, but much remains unknown, and we must let the very best science be our guide.
Second, providing a rigorous assessment of where we are in this fight.
Candid, honest, sober assessment.
Are Americans who struggle with these diseases living longer, healthier, more productive
lives?
Are they receiving the treatment they need, rather than ending up on the streets or behind
bars?
And then, third, making specific recommendations about policy reforms that can produce better
outcomes and treatment for Americans with these diseases.
If our policies and our practices need improving—and I think we can all agree they do—how can
we fix them specifically?
Dr. McCance-Katz is going to talk more in a little bit about specific questions for
this committee and the items she will address.
I firmly believe, firmly believe that mental healthcare, in particular serious mental illness
does not receive the emphasis or the resources it needs.
In part that will come not just through the provision of more healthcare services but
also through a more holistic approach, a true continuum of care that makes sense for each
and every individual unique patient.
That will involve a rigorous assessment of what we can do from an in-patient standpoint
and out-patient standpoint—where we can best serve Americans suffering from severe
mental illness, at a sustainable cost, in a way that recognizes their dignity?
What can we do to support families who provide day-to-day care?
Part of these inquiries will involve listening to people on the front lines: the families,
the local government officials, the healthcare providers.
All of you here today bring not just your own valuable perspectives, but you bring a
whole broad network built over a lifetime of dedication to this cause.
So we have set forth some tough questions and challenges for you.
I'm an eternal optimist, and I suspect most of you are as well.
We are joined here today by a number of SAMHSA staff who are in the back of the room, and
judging by their vision statement, they are optimists too.
Here's their vision: "Behavioral health is essential to health.
Prevention works.
Treatment is effective.
People recover."
All of us here in this room, I suspect agree with that vision.
A lack of attention to serious mental illness has done grievous damage to America's health,
to millions of Americans' lives.
But treatment is effective.
People recover.
Optimists like to dream, and I want to challenge all of you to dream a bit: dream of a country
where we treat serious mental illness with the same expertise and commitment with which
we treat cancer and heart disease.
Where individuals and families facing serious mental illness feel no shame in their struggle,
but receive the sympathy, support, and love they need.
Love is going to be the motivating force in making that dream a reality.
Love of neighbor is what drives doctors to care for their patients; love of kin is what
drives family members to do anything to make certain their child, a sibling, or their spouse
or their parent get the care they need.
If our policies, and the work of this committee, can contain just a fraction of the love, compassion,
and commitment that I have seen in the work you have already done, the stories you have
told, this endeavor will be a success.
Thanks for your service and your commitment.
God Bless You.
-------------------------------------------
ENAMOUR RECORDS presents - MARIELLA performing "I'LL NEVER TELL" - Live in the Garden - Duration: 3:25.
Are you listening?
Distance is killing me
The light is fading and there's nothing left but sound
And I know that
We may not even last
Before the moment can you smile and fake it
I know
When it's real and when it's not
Pull me closer
Til we integrate
You can stop but I'll never
If you wanna kiss me, goodbye
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
If you want to live in
This lie
I'll never tell
I'll never tell!
Tell!
I want the tension though it never felt so good
I don't care about
The aftermath
I just want to hear you
Say it!
When you go it burns like a rough shot going down
With good intensions
If they dissipate
Promise me we're gonna make it
If you want to kiss me, goodbye
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
If you want to live in
This lie
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
And if you want to come in
Alright!
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
But if you want to end this, tonight
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
I, I, Cant say no!
You know I never say no, to you!
To you!
Oh-oh!
Every time my phone lights up
I'm prayin' it's you
It's you!
Oh-Oh!
There's no relief in you
Stayin' the night
Oh-Oh!
When you go, swear I'm gonna crack!
Cause you just might leave and never come back
So, kiss me goodbye!
If you want to live in this lie
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
Oh! If you want to come in
Alright!
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
No, if you want to end this, tonight!
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
Oh! If you want to kiss me goodbye
I'll never tell
And if you want to live in
This lie
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
Oh! If you want come in, Alright!
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
But if you want to end this tonight
I'll never tell
I'll never tell
Tell
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét