Thứ Sáu, 22 tháng 9, 2017

Waching daily Sep 22 2017

I initially wanted to bring a huge box of fruit I collected during my stay, but he insisted he had enough for a full meal.

He just indicated that he'd try fishing in a bit, for now he's going to prepare the fire lay.

I think he's telling me that this is a spot he's had a fire before. It must have been a long while ago.

When he puts his index finger to his forearm, he's talking about fish, that he's going to catch them or how big they are and how many there are.

I was eager to help, but not interfere with his fire pit, he seemed to want to build it a certain way.

I noticed he was quite particular about setting it up perfectly flat. Maybe it was to help balance the pot.

At this point, I was really curious to know what he was going to use for fire wood as it's tropical and not exactly full of dead timber like at home.

I think these are dried coconut leaves.

I wasn't really sure how he knew one was dry from another or how to process it down it fuel.

Felix works at the beach at the Grand Paradise Resort in Samana, Dominican Republic collecting coconuts for tourists.

Felix seemed to key into the bigger thicker pieces.

At home, this wouldn't be nearly enough to get a good fire going and get any coals.

I had to resist jumping in here and loading up the fire pit.

If you notice, Felix isn't making a big teepee style fire lay, he's actually lining up four ends to meet in the middle between the rocks.

I wondered how he'd start the fire....

Felix tried and failed a few times trying to start the fire on natural tinders. He didn't break them up or try to dry them. He then used the plastic bag.

The rainy season in the North of the DR is from December to end of January. It still rains periodically, just in shorter bouts.

I really wanted to start piling wood on top, but held back as much as I could.

This woody material burns surprisingly well.

While he wasn't looking, I fed the fire a little how I would at home, by piling.

I wanted to make sure he approved of the wood I was using.

I found the fire burned rather well for only having four ends touching together, but it still went out frequently to a dust, though it re-ignited easily each time.

Felix pre-caught a couple of fish in the morning just in case.

Plantain looks very similar to banana, but aren't sweet, they are more like a starchy potato. I really liked them.

He told me that he caught 10 fish in the morning just on the other side of the resort.

There are many different types of snapper.

This area is covered in really sharp rock that would be impossible to walk on in bare feet.

I think he just found a clam, and said that it would work as bait later.

The fork worked really well to de-scale the fish. I might use this myself!

Removing the gills...

There's no rush to get things done in the Dominican..."Dominican time" was a thing.

I had to get him to stop every once in a while to film, he was a good sport about it.

It might be because there aren't real seasons in the DR. The temperature is quite stable.

So there's always tomorrow....

Suited me just fine.

After the fish was cooked, I asked if we should eat the brain or eye...he said no.

This was done in order to help the fish take more of the spice he planned to use.

This would work well on a small mouth bass!

It took us a long time to set up this catch n cook. At first I wasn't sure if he meant 4 a.m. or 4 p.m.

I'd love to know what kind of spice this was. It was full of flavor, but didn't have any heat.

Dominican's are famous for not liking hot dishes.

I think the spice is called adobo, but I wouldn't know exactly what was in it. If you know, comment!

It might even go well on pike!

I enjoyed all the Dominican food...I don't like spicy foods all that much either.

I had to replace a lot of the audio in this because it was so windy and the gopro just picked up wind noise.

I didn't bring my main camera because theft of electronics is a real risk in the DR.

This is a better shot of how the fire is built. Four main logs touching only in the center.

The fish usually move in on a high tide, so this is an ideal time to fish here.

I think one of the plates was re-used without washing first! See if you can spot exactly where!

Of all those local fruit, Felix only took the sugarcane, and the quenepa. He really wanted me to leave everything else behind.

A rock for a sinker...that's got to be frustrating every time you get snagged.

None of the locals I saw used rods, only variations of handlines.

We'd only use this type of rig for icefishing. It's very frustrating otherwise.

Felix used just a small piece of fish on a very small hook.

Locals don't wear shorts, they are for "wussies."

He's pointing at a shark!

He doesn't want it to come in a bite his leg!

He wants me to see it so he's trying to point it out to me.

I never really did spot it.

He got snagged and lost his hook and rock sinker.

I made some fried plantain at home when I got back and it was just as good as it was there!

At the end of my trip, I wasn't able to give any of my fruit away. I got the sense that they didn't value it very much!

Even the resort only served up about 4-5 fruit out of the 100's they grow there.

The plantain was double fried, squished in between the banana peels after the first fry.

He picked a leaf to use as an extra plate.

The locals seemed to enjoy the limoncello over all the fruit they had...maybe because it was just coming into season.

It has a big pit in the center and has a cotton ball feel to it.

He's saying that I'm cutting it wrong.

We've been doing it wrong all this time!

Washing my hands with a leaf...

He's saying there's too much food here and that I'm going to get fat if I eat it all!

With all that oil, it sure was a filling meal!

There is a wood press that is normally used to do this.

I want to know if I can use the machete to open the passion fruit.

"Passion" fruit...you wonder, two fingers deep, slurp, and it's tangy....hmmmm

It's kind of like grapefruit.

Very satisfying to eat.

I insist that he show me how to prepare the star fruit.

I think he's telling me that he normally doesn't eat it...but instead makes a drink in a blender.

I was pretty sour, like lemon.

If this is laid down horizontally and burred in the beach sand, new shoots will sprout up in 3-4 days.

The taste is like white sugar, flavorless, but sweet.

It's also full of fiber, which you must spit out.

Some of the fruit I brought with us...

I was able to buy almost $100 worth of fruit for $20, and the locals thought I overpaid.

If they saw my box of fruit, they would have a chuckle!

He's telling me that he can literally find these fruits all over the place, everywhere.

It's so common, he doesn't even bother with it.

He'll eat the lime as a drink....

But also add it on top of fish...

It was one of the few things that I brought that he approved of.

Dominican's don't seem to value their fruit and wild resources.

Probably because they come so easily to them.

He seemed to value the fish as food the most of everything.

I harvested this lime from the grounds at the resort.

The fish was quite good.

This was filmed the day before since the bowls had to be washed well and dried before use.

Making a bowl at home would take hours, these come ready made!

He's saying that he's going to leave it as is, since he had already messed up a few gourds trying to make them perfect.

These gourds come rock hard, but the outer shell can be carved to make designs before they dry out completely.

Scrubbing with sand removes the slime that coats the shell.

I wonder if I could do this!

Coconuts are loaded with calories and are a meal themselves. Full of fat and carbs.

You just need to climb the tree!

People who spoke English were the minority at out resort.

Felix must have had a machete accident, as his left thumb is badly scared. But I never did ask.

We'd normally drink right out of the coconut, but it's cool to use traditional gourd containers.

The fish wasn't wasted!

Felix objected to eating the avocado by itself, but felt that the plantain gave it enough flavor when combined.

No guacamole in the Dominican!

I'm saying that I'm full, but he's welcome to still eat it!

A complete meal including fat, carbs and protein, all local!

He's wondering if the camera is running all the time, or just taking pictures.

Felix wanted to know if the video would show up on the Internet.

I'm telling him that I'll give him the web address when we get back to the resort.

I love bananas, and eat at least one each day!

Bananas are local too!

At one point while Felix was washing up, I heard machine gun fire. I told him and he wasn't worried since he figured they were shooting in the other direction!

There are armed guards posted at the resort front gate and both ends of the beach stationed full time.

We were told not to go to this part of the beach since tourists had been mugged before.

I'm telling him that I only want a few pieces to bring back to my wife.

Courtney was worried sick about me while filming this video...she's keeping an eye out for me from the resort.

I wanted Felix to try one last time to catch a fish on camera....

He wasn't too excited about that prospect.

Handline fishing must work well enough, or else they would have come up with a more 'human' way to catch fish.

I couldn't imagine tying on a rock every time I needed a sinker.

Then again, maybe it's more economical since they snag up so often.

If I come back, I'll have to bring a rod and reel and a pile of sinkers to leave behind.

I wonder what Felix would think about the modern gear.

A small piece of fish for bait.

Maybe he didn't want to fish anymore due to the prospects of getting his pants wet again after sunset....

Then again...shorts are for wussies :)

He told me that there were lots of fish, just out a little deeper.

For more infomation >> Catch n Cook Red Snapper | Dominican Republic - Duration: 39:53.

-------------------------------------------

La scienza dei supereroi: SPIDERMAN - Duration: 2:52.

For more infomation >> La scienza dei supereroi: SPIDERMAN - Duration: 2:52.

-------------------------------------------

Crochet with led yarn (08) - Duration: 0:47.

For more infomation >> Crochet with led yarn (08) - Duration: 0:47.

-------------------------------------------

Mumtaz Qadri Shaheed ko zabardast khiraj e tehseen by Abdul Hameed Chishti (sialkot) - Duration: 2:57.

PLZ SUBSCRIBE , SHARE , LIKE AND MUST FEEDBACK

For more infomation >> Mumtaz Qadri Shaheed ko zabardast khiraj e tehseen by Abdul Hameed Chishti (sialkot) - Duration: 2:57.

-------------------------------------------

Vận Mệnh Tuổi Mùi Tháng 8 Âm Lịch: Sự Nghiệp, Tài Lộc, Tình Cảm Và Sức Khỏe Chính Xác Đầy Đủ Nhất - Duration: 10:10.

For more infomation >> Vận Mệnh Tuổi Mùi Tháng 8 Âm Lịch: Sự Nghiệp, Tài Lộc, Tình Cảm Và Sức Khỏe Chính Xác Đầy Đủ Nhất - Duration: 10:10.

-------------------------------------------

Wahl 2017: Merkel? Schulz? (…oder GAR NICHT wählen?!) - Duration: 4:30.

For more infomation >> Wahl 2017: Merkel? Schulz? (…oder GAR NICHT wählen?!) - Duration: 4:30.

-------------------------------------------

Characters That Almost Single-Handedly Ruined A TV Show - Duration: 6:19.

It's hard to put together a truly engaging ensemble cast, but it's magic when it happens.

Occasionally, however, showrunners toss in a few faces that throw off the balance of

our favorite TV shows, losing viewers and threatening to destroy a show's legacy.

Here are just a few characters that turned otherwise enjoyable TV shows into an unwatchable

mess.

Wesley Crusher

When Star Trek: The Next Generation first hit warp speed, the idea was to continue Gene

Roddenberry's vision of a united world seeking out new life and civilizations in outer space.

What no one expected was the most annoying addition to Trek since the Tribbles: Wesley

Crusher.

Wesley the boy genius failed to make it into Starfleet Academy more than once, but somehow

remained on board the Enterprise because of his plucky attitude, talking back to senior

officers, and often saving the day with answers that the adults couldn't manage.

What he didn't have, however, was respect.

Not even getting stabbed earned this kid any street cred.

Eventually, Wesley was put in his place by Captain Picard...

"Sir, I know this may end me as an acting ensign, but…"

"Shut up, Wesley."

...and even his own mother.

"And since I am finished here sir may I point out that.."

"Shut up, Wesley."

Wesley would exit as a series regular in the fourth season, but would show up in four more

episodes further on in the show's run.

Actor Wil Wheaton would later admit the criticism of the character hurt him personally, but

given how he's been given his own asteroid and remains a rising power in geek culture,

he's probably gotten over it.

If he hasn't, well, then...

"Shut up, Wesley."

Seven

FOX's first big TV hit was Married…With Children, a series that's still fondly remembered

today.

One character is all but forgotten, however, and that may be for the best.

Young Seven Wanker is taken in by the Bundys, opening the door for Al's misery to continue

with a new mouth to feed.

Still, Al declares him to be a "True Bundy" after a while.

But, with no additional story and a character too cute for what worked on a non-traditional

comedy, the show began to sputter out.

Shane Street, the child actor hired for the role, had little experience, and the audience

wasn't reacting well.

After a dozen episodes, Seven left the show by escaping to the D'arcy home next

door and refusing to leave.

He was never spoken of again beyond a few quick gags that reinforced his exile.

Married went on to last another four seasons, so it turned out to be the right move.

Maya Herrera

When NBC's Heroes hit a peak during its debut season, creator Tim Kring was left with a

problem.

How do you top a season that introduced lovable time traveler Hiro, power-stealing villain

Sylar, and the iconic phrase "Save the cheerleader, save the world"?

When the show returned for its sophomore season, they added Maya Herrera.

Played by Dania Ramirez, Maya and her twin brother crossed the border from Mexico into

the United States, looking for help in controlling her poisonous powers.

But her character just didn't connect, and got lost among the other slow stories of the

season.

Worse, Maya remained mostly independent of the series' established characters and showed

little prowess as a hero.

With a writer's strike causing the season to close with just a handful of episodes,

Maya was cured and rushed out of the series.

Kring admitted they had screwed up the season and apologized to fans.

Maya was never seen again, curing Heroes of its own poison, — at least until it was

canceled, rebooted, and canceled again.

April Nardini

For fans of Gilmore Girls, the breakup of Luke and Lorelai was the equivalent of having

their hearts ripped out, and there was only one person to blame: April.

April debuted in Season 6 as the previously unknown teenage daughter of Luke.

When she steals and tests Luke's DNA as part of her nerdy science project and learns that

he's her father, it's the beginning of the end.

Luke he can no longer commit to marriage, and he hides the reason for his decision.

Things come to a head, and when he's finally ready to commit, it's too late.

The star-crossed lovers of Stars Hollow find themselves done for good.

All because of a gawky 12-year-old girl whose idea of a good time was counting salt shakers

in the diner.

Years later, actress Vanessa Marano would admit that she herself was conflicted over

the character.

In fact, she admits she "sort of hated" April herself.

When you hate the character you play, there is no greater proof that they were no good

— for the show or the viewers.

Cousin Oliver

He's the ultimate TV ruiner.

Introduced in the fifth season of the Brady Bunch, Cousin Oliver was Carol's nephew, dumped

with the family while his parents were traveling on a South American dig.

We soon learned why they'd rather not be around him.

Oliver was a regular for all of six episodes, but his tendency to cause accidents when he

was around changed the balance of the series, becoming something of a real-life evil Tiki

that cursed the family.

The Brady Bunch was canceled just a few episodes later and Robbie Rist, who played Oliver,

wasn't even told the series was done.

He only learned of the show's finish when he found out he wasn't going back to work.

And yet, somehow, Cousin Oliver isn't the most reviled character on this list.

No, that honor belongs to…

Scrappy Doo

For decades, Scooby Doo and his pals at Mystery Inc. have unmasked ghoulish villains who no

doubt would have gotten away with it, had it not been for those meddling kids.

In 1979, however, there was a push to cancel Scooby, so producers Hanna-Barbera threw a

Hail Mary.

Enter: Scooby's feisty nephew Scrappy Doo.

The series was renewed, although the diminutive pup would cause a ripple effect still felt

today.

Scrappy was the exact opposite of the cowardly Shaggy and Scooby, always looking for a fight.

While the team's terror often set up gags, Scrappy had only that one aggressive trait.

Soon after his first appearance, Scrappy even got top billing along with Scooby, while Fred,

Velma and Daphne got benched.

Imagine losing your job to the dog you can't housebreak.

Years later, in Scooby's first live-action feature film, Scrappy was portrayed as a disrespectful,

exiled member of Mystery, Inc.

So to review: Scooby, all time classic.

Scrappy?

Best left in the kennel.

Scrappy Doo sucks.

"Puppy…

AHH!"

"HAHAHAHA"

Thanks for watching!

Click the Grunge icon to subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Plus check out all this cool stuff we know you'll love, too!

For more infomation >> Characters That Almost Single-Handedly Ruined A TV Show - Duration: 6:19.

-------------------------------------------

Ryan Hansen Solves Crimes on Television* - OFFICIAL TRAILER - Duration: 2:25.

♪♪

You're gonna tell us everything we need to know

or you're gonna have a tough time in the slammer.

The slammer?

You don't like my lingo?

Well, pal, you're really not gonna like

the way they talk in the big house,

'cause in there, they talk with their [bleep].

You've really never done this before, have you?

Wait, why? Is it not feeling authentic?

I'm Ryan Hansen.

Nobody knows who Ryan Hansen is.

This is my show, "Celebrity Vice Squad."

That's a really stupid name for a show.

You're one of the celebrity liaisons to the LAPD?

I guess they were pretty impressed with my reel.

They must be fans of un-aired pilots.

The mayor deputized me

and everything.

Me and the other A-listers are supposed to be, like,

Hollywood liaisons for the LAPD,

helping solve crime using our industry connections ,

sense memory techniques,

our gift of channeling characters.

Seriously? That's the premise of the show?

I'm, like, legit helping solve this.

Come on, admit it.

You need to shut up when you talk.

There's a killer out there and we've gotta find him.

LAPD! Drop your weapons!

Or her. Women can be murderers, too.

Not the face!

-Hashtag I'm with her. -Ignore him.

♪♪

-She's my partner. -No, he's not my partner.

He's a sanctioned civilian observer.

-I'm getting a badge. -No, he's not.

It's being discussed.

Would I have seen you in anything?

This, this show that you're literally on right now.

It looks like orange is the new white.

[laughing]

I don't get it.

♪♪

Don't do it.

You're not gonna shoot Kristen Bell.

We need the climax to be climactic.

♪♪

Ahhh!

Ohh!

Don't you need to be somebody

to have a movie made about you?

You'd think, right? In television, forget about it.

They're giving everyone a show now.

Ugh.

♪♪

I take

♪ Two steps forward ♪

♪ Two steps back ♪

Aww, man!

♪ We come together 'cause opposites attract ♪

I mean, it's a little on the nose, but--

Ooh, chorus, chorus.

♪ You know it ♪

'Cause opposites attract

♪♪

♪ You know it ♪♪

For more infomation >> Ryan Hansen Solves Crimes on Television* - OFFICIAL TRAILER - Duration: 2:25.

-------------------------------------------

Top 15 - Best Movies 2017 - Duration: 1:11.

For more infomation >> Top 15 - Best Movies 2017 - Duration: 1:11.

-------------------------------------------

Free Thoughts, Ep. 205: Ten Things Political Scientists Know That You Don't (with Hans Noel) - Duration: 56:01.

Trevor Burrus: Welcome to Free Thoughts.

I'm Trevor Burrus.

Joining me today is Hans Noel, the associate professor at Georgetown University.

He is the author of "Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America" from Cambridge

University Press.

He has also authored many articles, one of which is the subject of today's episode, "10

Things Political Scientists Know That You Don't", and Hans actually informed me that

he is turning that into a book, which [00:00:30] makes me very excited because I have recommended

this article many times to many people because I think it is very important that people realize

this, so welcome to Free Thoughts, Hans.

Hans Noel: Thanks, thanks for having me.

Trevor Burrus: What prompted you to write the "10 Things" article?

Hans Noel: I was approached by the editor of the journal that it's in, North Forum,

they were doing a special issue on things that political scientists could learn from

practitioners and so forth, which is a great issue.

I go, "That's really great," and they said, "Oh, do you want to contribute something to

that?"

It's [00:01:00] really good, but I'm a political scientist, so I don't know what we can learn

from them.

I know things that maybe others don't always know that we could teach the other way, and

so that led to that conversation.

I said, "Let's put this piece together," and it has been very well received.

I know a lot of people use it and assign it in classes.

It's getting a little bit older now, which is why I'd like to update it with the book,

but I just sort of felt like there's a lot that political scientists can and should learn

from people who are actually doing politics, [00:01:30] but there is a lot of commentary

about people doing politics from people who are doing politics that is a little bit ignorant

of the things that social scientists have, at this point, figured out.

Trevor Burrus: In the interview article you write, "People would probably be better off

if they knew more than they do about a lot of things.

Politics might, however, be the last thing on that list."

That seems a strange thing to say.

What do you mean by that?

Hans Noel: For me, and for you, and presumably for a lot of the listeners now, politics is

really important because we're really interested in it.

[00:02:00] We have other things that are interesting in our lives, so I'm spending the year now

in Florence, Italy, as we mentioned a minute ago, and there's all these great arts, and

architecture, and history here, none of which really has anything to do with politics.

You can, and should, be able to live a very full life without being that involved in politics.

As I go on to say in the piece, as much as we'd like to think you'll be able to live

a lively and happy life [00:02:30] without involvement in politics, we think that people

have a responsibility to know about politics or at least to know about it if they are going

to participate in politics.

We may as well figure out what it is that the experts on politics has, to this point,

managed to learn.

Trevor Burrus: That might be the case that people are disappointed in that, though.

Some of the things that the experts know might disappoint some people.

Hans Noel: I think that's definitely true, and unlike in most other disciplines, we think

if this isn't how it works, maybe we should be able to [00:03:00] change it.

That's probably legit in some cases, but it would be useful to have a better understanding

of what we think we already know before we start going around saying, "Oh, I don't like

how our system works, and we ought to be different and it ought to be changed, it's not common

sense, those eggheads in Washington don't know what they're doing."

Maybe they don't, but if we knew better what they think that they do know, we'd be better

off.

Trevor Burrus: Let's start at the beginning of the list.

The number one thing is, " [00:03:30] It's the fundamental, Stupid."

What is that "thing" that you know?

Hans Noel: That's a riff on a line from the Clinton campaign in '92 ... the Bill Clinton

campaign, which their mantra for their campaign was "It's the Economy, Stupid," meaning let's

keep our focus on the economy because the economy is the thing that we think people

are going to vote on, and that's going to cause them to vote for Clinton, which in fact

is what happened.

That phenomena, that strategy that Clinton [00:04:00] had in that campaign generalizes.

We think in general that the thing that drives most election results is how happy our people

... in particular, how happy are they with the big things that the government is responsible

for, like the state of the economy.

When the economy is doing well, incumbents tend to get re-elected.

When the economy is doing poorly, incumbents tend to get booted out.

Of course, when the economy is doing so-so, then you tend to get really close elections,

which is what we've had in the last couple of presidential elections in the United States.

In that sense, you don't need to know anything else [00:04:30] about Clinton versus Trump,

or whatever else was going on in 2016.

The state of the economy was that you'd expect when the incumbent party, the Democrats, who

have been in power for two terms, to have a hard time winning.

In fact, Clinton outperformed that expectation by a couple of points, but you sort of expect

that that would be a year when the Republicans would probably win.

That tends to be what happens.

So, we really want to over-interpret every election and to all the different nuances

of [00:05:00] what happened, and there's nothing wrong with that because the other subject

also probably matters, but a baseline is when things are going well people return the incumbent

to office, and when they're not going to so well they like to throw them out and replace

them with someone else.

Trevor Burrus: Does that mean that campaigning doesn't matter, or at least doesn't matter

as much as people might think it does?

Hans Noel: Probably not.

I mean, campaigning definitely matters in some ways, and there's two broad things that

campaigns are doing.

One is they're mobilizing voters and they're getting them to the polls and so forth, and

what we basically [00:05:30] have seen is that in most good elections both parties do

a pretty good job of that.

It's a little like saying, "Does advertising not matter because the market share between

Coke and Pepsi hasn't changed very much."

Well, but if one of them stopped advertising, things might be different.

There's a little bit of that that's going on.

The other thing that campaigns do is they can focus and shape the conversation around

the state of the economy.

Bill Clinton said, "It's the Economy, [00:06:00] Stupid.

Let's talk about the economy, let's talk about the fundamentals and push it in that direction."

He could have done something different, and then that might have had some other effects

into the direction.

Things matter on the margins, and if elections are going to be very close, then all kinds

of other things that are in the campaign probably matter.

In 2016, the election came down to fewer than 100,000 votes in three or four states.

Those people are going to be affected by the campaign.

The magnitude of the campaign effects might be small, [00:06:30] but if the race is close,

then it can still matter.

So, we really want to think campaigns don't matter at all, but they matter in the context

of a sort of baseline that is set by its fundamentals: how popular is the president, how is the economy

doing, and so forth.

Trevor Burrus: It seems that if they both stop ... if they agree to stop campaigning,

which of course is this huge pie in sky, all these political ads.

I mean political scientists say this is almost wasted money.

A lot of people think they have huge effects, and people spend [00:07:00] hundreds of millions

of dollars on ads, and it sometimes seems like a destructive equilibrium, which is if

everyone stands up at the concert ... if one person stands up at the concert, then everyone

has to stand up.

But, if everyone could just agree to sit down, then we can be relaxing, and then if someone

brings a box and everyone else will bring a box, eventually you can have the entire

crowd standing on 200 boxes because no one can agree to just, "Okay, let's take away

all the boxes and just stand on the floor."

It seems kind of destructive sometimes.

Hans Noel: [00:07:30] Maybe it is, but one thing that's important is ... empirically

we find this pattern that the economy has this effect and the fundamentalists and generalists

of the things like foreign policy have this affect.

We only observe it in a world in which there are campaigns.

It might be that if there were no campaigns at all, then things wouldn't work out this

way.

The other thing about campaigns is that we talk a lot about how there's like all these

ads that it seems annoying and destructive.

Again, to people like us who pay a lot of attention to politics and maybe don't need

advertisements [00:08:00] to know what's going on with politics, it seems like it's a distraction.

One thing that we know is that the more ad campaigns that exist, the more that whole

phenomena plays out, the more informed people are about politics.

It might be that while the campaign is not necessary to someone who wins, it does actually

inform people a bit about who is running and what they stand for, what direction they are,

and that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Given that the cost of campaigning isn't ... it seems like a lot and we talk about [00:08:30]

a lot of money, but it's nothing like the cost of campaigning for a consumer product

or something.

It may not be such a bad thing that people have a high attention to campaign.

You might worry about the tone, or what if it could be more positive and all of that,

but now it seems like we're on a level of fine-tuning something, like, "Oh, if only

some people would just be nicer," while I'm sure that would be nice, I'm not necessarily

... if I were work with you on reforming the [00:09:00] political system, that's one thing

in a way, which put politics as different than some other disciplines.

Like, in chemistry this is how it works, but in political science and other social sciences,

learning about it we can actually change what we do and we could actually see things in

different directions.

If I were working on doing that, I think getting rid of campaigns wouldn't be high on my list

of reforms that I'd be interested in [00:09:23].

Trevor Burrus: Number two, "The will of the people is incredibly hard to put your finger

on."

Hans Noel: The [00:09:30] issue that I'm getting at here is that it's ... we like to think

about like, "I took a poll, and the poll says this is what people believe and what they've

said."

Most people are not that interested in politics, and therefore they don't actually have well-defined

opinions about things.

It maybe makes more sense to say people just don't have an opinion on something, rather

than saying that 60% support something and 40% disapprove.

If you ask people, if you call them up and say, "Hey, [00:10:00] what do you think about

the death penalty?

Or, do you approve of the job that the president is doing as President?," they're going to

give you an answer, but it's not a well thought out answer.

It's not their fault, like I said before, people have more important things to do with

their lives than to know about politics.

But, they will give us an answer and the reason why that's important is because maybe a different

context where an election was say, to come up, well then there would be a campaign and

there would be a conversation and that might change people's minds about things.

So, we do a survey and we say, "Oh, you know, 60% of [00:10:30] people approve of the job

the president's doing," or, "Right now Donald Trump's approval ratings are really low."

Okay, that something that tells us that he's not going to win re-election.

Oh, but what's going to happen when the campaign turns around and he starts trying to sell

some people on himself?

Then, they might change their minds.

It's not that you can't ask surveys, or can't do these things, but you want to realize that

the public opinion of people are very responsive to things.

Particularly responsive to partisan [00:11:00] messages, so what Republics are telling people

Republican voters are going to believe, and what Democrats are telling people, Democratic

voters are going to believe.

Given that that's the sort of dynamic, we shouldn't sort of imagine that public opinion

is this independent force in the world that I've tapped it by asking this question, and

now I know what the people want.

Well, they want what they've been told they're supposed to want because they're only answering

the survey questions and the survey questions are asked in an information environment [00:11:30]

that was shaped by partisan politicians who are trying to shape that information.

Trevor Burrus: Yeah, this issue comes up ... I do a lot of work on campaign and finance policy,

and it comes up a lot.

What I see is kind of an implicit premise that is often unstated when people criticize

spending money in elections as they often say, "Oh, the Koch brothers," or "George Soros

are distorting the will of the people," or, "They are distorting American democracy,"

and it seems like the implicit premise there is that there is some sort [00:12:00] of real

political opinion will of the people almost Rousseauian and when someone comes in and

spends money to speak to the electorate, sometimes that's distorting, but I don't even know what

that would mean.

Hans Noel: I think that's right.

It's sort of nonsensical to talk about there being this pure thing that could be distorted.

You could still say, "I'm concerned that too much money from these people is going to create

an information environment that's going to steer things this direction, or that direction,"

and what we'd like to do is have a [00:12:30] conversation that includes ... let everyone

have a voice, or whatever, you can worry about that.

That's very different than saying, "We just can't people spending money.

We just need to get at their pure thing."

There is no purer thing, so then we've got to be thinking about are we getting a diversity

of voices that are affecting the information environment?

Are the facts that are in the information environment true?

Those kinds of things.

It's a very different question when, "Well, I just need to know what people really think."

Trevor Burrus: [00:13:00] Number three ... that leads into number three, which is, "The will

of the people, not only is it hard to put your finger on, it may not even exist."

Hans Noel: Yeah, this is an interesting finding that's been known on political science for

a long time, and economics for a long time, that as we tend to think about we'll just

aggregate our people's preferences, do we want to change our immigration policy to where

we make it more difficult for immigrants to enter the country, and let's see what everyone

thinks.

Let's lay aside the question that they maybe haven't even thought [00:13:30] about the

issue already.

Let's figure out what they mostly think, let's inform them, whatever ... and then they want

this policy.

Oh, so now we know what they think.

The thing is, if the dimensions of policy that exist are in any way more complicated

than just there's one question; yes or no, which of course they are, on all issues, then

it's quite possible that a majority might prefer some Policy A to Policy B, but B is

preferred to Policy [00:14:00] C, and the C is preferred to Policy A.

This can get a little technical, and I don't want to get too deep into it here, but the

idea behind this was at the era it was an economist working at Rand in the 50's, it's

kind of interesting in the question of, so, we keep talking about our international competition,

and the Cold War, and we keep thinking that's just to understand if we're rational and they're

rational, and everybody else understanding what happens when you kind of get things up,

so you're going to get off on this question of like, "Can we aggregate [00:14:30] up people's

preferences into something that's sort of coherent and rational?"

What they said, "Well, we don't want it to be a democracy, so what should a democracy

have?"

And, a democracy, so like, one person doesn't decide everything, that would be a dictatorship,

and if everybody wants something, well they should get it.

He's laid out a handful of things that he thought you might expect a democracy to have,

and in the end is, you can't do that.

Trevor Burrus: Right.

Hans Noel: Something that we think is important for democracy is at least clausibly going

to fall apart.

The thing that's most likely to fail is we think that a democracy should work [00:15:00]

no matter what people want.

We should have any possible set of preferences, and we just set them in to go that those preferences

are all kind of mushy and they could go in all different directions.

Any possible set of preferences should be acceptable, we have to be able to aggregate

them up.

The truth is, any aggregating system that we have, whether it be majority rule, or some

other super majority ... anything we do might possibility give us some sort of perverse

outcome where the whole country [00:15:30] votes for Donald Trump, but in fact, somebody

else the whole country would prefer, but the system didn't allow them to make that choice

and we never observed that.

That's possible.

It's a mathematical fact.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Trevor Burrus: We saw that in 1912, right?

We saw that in 1912, kind of, with Woodrow Wilson.

Hans Noel: Yeah, I think that 1912 is probably the most clear example.

The Republican party in 1912 was represented by Taft, who was probably the least progressive

[00:16:00] of the major counting candidates progressive, being of particular dimensions.

It's not quite the same as progressively meeting today, but at any rate, Taft.

Then he was challenged by Theodore Roosevelt, who had been a Republican president in the

past, and he wants to run again, and he's probably the most progressive again, in the

historical context.

So, it splits the Republican party and then they face off against Woodrow Wilson and the

Democrats, and Wilson wins, but it is quite possible that had Taft or Roosevelt [00:16:30]

by themselves been the candidate, that either one of them would have beat Wilson.

If you look at the votes across the country, in most states the Roosevelt vote and the

Taft vote add up together to about what Taft had gotten previously, so we match.

That's like the Republicans literally are splitting their vote, and there were more

Taft and Roosevelt votes together than there were for Wilson.

So, maybe we got the wrong president.

One thing to say is, "Oh, well we got the wrong president because the Republic [00:17:00]

party was split, and we shouldn't have let them be split."

But, that's not completely the answer because well, how do they not split?

Should they have nominated Taft?

Should they have nominated Roosevelt?

Which one was better?

Well, they faced off within the party and we got one answer, but it's hard to know.

I think the end result is, whatever you do in a collective action, you can't be too confident

that it really is what the people wanted.

It just depends on the system that you use.

It depends on the rule that we had in the application, and there's not [00:17:30] anything

wrong or right about those rules, but different rules give you different outcomes.

If that's the case, if different rules give you different outcomes, then it's very hard

to be very confident about any particular outcome because a different set of rules that

are just as reasonable would have given you a different one.

Trevor Burrus: Which leads nicely to number four, "There is no such thing as a mandate."

I'm sure probably Woodrow Wilson might have said something like ... giving his inaugural

speech in 1912, they don't have a mandate from the people, but that seems [00:18:00]

probably a stretch.

Hans Noel: Yeah, at least what we think of as a mandate is ... the people have said that

I should be the president, or people have said this policy platform is the one that

we should implement, if given all of the squishiness about what people want, and the problems with

aggregation, it's hard to believe that is ever the case.

Instead, what happens with mandates is it becomes a rhetorical argument that politicians

use to convince you that you should go along with this.

I think maybe we shouldn't trust it very much, but more, again, political scientists have

studied [00:18:30] this directly and said, "What happens when people say that they have

a mandate?"

We found that they try to create this narrative.

There's a nice book by Julia Azari that argues that presidents use the mandate argument,

in some cases, exactly when they need it the most because their political support is the

weakest, and instead they don't have an overwhelming majority, they have majority everywhere else.

So, they have to use that rhetorical argument to justify what they're trying to do.

If [00:19:00] they weren't using the word "mandate language," that might be because

they didn't need to because their party has control of everything so they can just implement

policy.

Trevor Burrus: Like Roosevelt would in the 30's, or Reagan in '84.

Not having to say you have a mandate because you won by such a huge amount that it wasn't

really necessary to build it up.

Hans Noel: That's right, yeah.

And, you don't have to make an argument to the other party in congress that you should

be listening to because the other party in congress is a minority already, and your party

is there doing what you want.

The key there [00:19:30] is that the notion of a mandate, we should think of it as a rhetorical

strategy and not as some kind of true, "Well he won, so whatever he wants to do we gotta

do."

That's a rhetorical strategy.

What we do with that as a citizen, then they're like, "Well if you like what the President

wants to do, you probably want to say, 'All right, he should do it.'

That's how our system works, and if you don't like it, then you're going to be 'Ah, there's

no mandate.'"

It doesn't really tell us what much to do, but we should be thinking about it as a rhetorical

strategy rather than some sort of right of the leadership [00:20:00] because they were

represented by a majority through some particular system.

Trevor Burrus: Number five ... is it "Duverger [phonetic doo vurg er] or [phonetic doo verg

er]?"

Hans Noel: It's going to be [phonetic doo ver jay].

It's French.

Trevor Burrus: Duverger, okay well that was number three.

"Duverger, it's the law."

Hans Noel: The Duverger's Law is the one of the few things that I think political scientists

would be willing to call "a law."

It's probably not fair to do that.

We don't have laws in the same way that we have Newton's Laws of Physics, or anything

like that.

[00:20:30] We don't have those kinds of laws in social sciences.

Duverger's Law has been called the ["addonist" inaudible 00:20:35].

In fact, it doesn't really hold up perfectly empirically, but it's still an important one.

The idea behind this is, "Why is it that we only have two parties in the United States?"

The answer that Duverger would propose is, "In the United States we have first past the

post-election rules, and so when you have, that is to say in order to win a seat in congress,

you just get the most votes in the congressional district, and then you'd get it."

[00:21:00] Places that have that kind of system tend toward fewer parties, and maybe especially

even to two parties.

The reason is that say you're running for office ... well, let's talk about the presidency,

which is a similar thing.

Say you're running for office for the presidency, and you've got Clinton running, you've got

Trump running, and you're like, "I don't like them, I want a third party choice."

But, now you go to vote and you're going to go vote between Clinton or Trump, but no,

you don't like either of them, you'd rather a third party choice.

As much as you might like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you gotta be pretty confident they're

not going to win [00:21:30] because you can see the polling and you can see that it's

unlikely that they're going to win.

Meanwhile, you probably have an opinion between Trump and Clinton, so why vote for the third

party candidate when you have an opinion over the two people who are most likely to win

and you could affect the outcome in that direction.

Duverger doesn't tell you what to do, it isn't saying that's right or wrong, it's saying

that both people are going to think that way.

If they're going to think that way and on both politicians, therefore are going to think

that way, so then really steeled politicians are not going to run as third party candidates.

[00:22:00] This is the smart thing that both Trump and Sanders did, for instance.

Both of them were outsiders and neither of them said, "I'm going to run as a third party

independent candidate," because that wasn't going to work.

They said, "I'm going to run and capture one of the party nominations because that's what's

going to be a ticket to winning."

If that's what's going to happen, you're going to reduce yourself down to two parties.

People who complain in the United States who say, "I wish I had a third party choice,"

I think there's a legitimate sense that maybe that would be a good thing.

I won't take a side one way or the other on that.

But, people who complain about that tend to think, " [00:22:30] We just need to let these

third parties flourish, and we should stop saying nasty things about Jill Stein," or

whatever, if they're running, "We should be nice about the third party," in that they'll

win votes.

The system is not geared toward having that.

If you want to have a viable third and fourth party, as we do have in many countries around

the world, you need a different system.

Probably a system that is proportional in some way, a proportional representation system

where instead the way that you would get [00:23:00] seats in the legislature is by what proportion

of the vote you get.

If you get 20% of the vote, you get 20% of the seats.

Then, you don't lose anything and there's no harm in voting for a minor party, because

you can still help them get a little bit.

It also matters that some countries have a parliamentary system rather than a presidential

system.

Presidential system is sort of like a single-member district on steroids, like the presidency

is a single seat and you have to win it, whereas in a parliamentary system like in Great Britain

or in Canada, where they [00:23:30] do have slightly more viable minor parties that still

tends towards two large parties, but you tend to have more viable third parties.

Thereto, though, you can send them to parliament and they can make a coalition government and

something in parliament, whereas in our system a third party would just be an appendage that

would have to rely with one of the new parties, and they would not be able to succeed at trying

to influence the executive, or it's a problematic system where you're choosing your executive,

you're choosing your Prime Minister from the legislature, [00:24:00] and the legislature

is selecting them.

Having a voice in the legislature is enough.

Those dynamics, again, the rules that we have affect the outcome there, and if you really

want a third party then we ought to be changing institutions.

Until you do, the metaphor I like is ... it's a little bit like saying, "I really wish we

had better public transit in my city, so let me go down to this corner where the train

ought to be there, and wait for the train to come."

Until you build the transit, there's no point in going and waiting for the train.

[00:24:30] You want to change the institution first and then you can vote for your third

party.

Trevor Burrus: Occasionally third parties in America, as you said, it's not a perfect

model and a perfect law, but occasionally third parties like Ross Perot in '92, who

a lot of people decided that they weren't throwing their vote away with him getting

20% of the vote, and then 1860 is another example of third parties.

It happens.

Is there any sort of theory about why at these times [00:25:00] third parties might be more

successful, because a lot of people thought it might have been this year, or this last

election, with distaste for Republicans and Democrats, and it ended up not being a very

big third party year.

Hans Noel: Yeah, I think when you have a clear division within an existing coalition, that's

going to happen.

Again, in 1912 we talked about earlier, the Republicans basically nominated two people

and so some Republicans thought this was the right person, and some thought that was the

right person.

Much depends in this Duverger logic.

Much depends [00:25:30] on who we collectively think are the top two candidates.

Trump and Clinton are the representatives of the two major parties, so they're the two

that everyone should vote for.

But, if everyone believed that the race was really a Johnson versus Stein race, then everyone

should switch and vote the other way.

There are going to be times when the political alignments and shifts and so forth are such

that the parties are torn apart a little bit, and there are some uncertainties about the

direction, and then that's [00:26:00] going to lead us to these kind of unusual places.

1860 is a perfect example of that where you've got slavery as a key issue in politics that

both parties have been trying to avoid, and then the Republican party now has an element

that is going to talk about it so you have divides within the North and the South, and

meanwhile you already have the existing divisions over the tariff and other things that were

divided in the parties.

That kind of creates these pockets and it's not clear at who your partner is supposed

to be, [00:26:30] so then the voting plays out.

If you kept voting, if they voted and you saw the outcome and then you got to vote the

next day and you kept doing that, which is a little bit like what Poland does, you might

eventually get to a place where, "Oh, now we've all figured it out, and we're going

to vote this way."

It may take a while to get to that new equilibrium with its clear two parties.

There is always a pressure towards two parties in the system, but there is also a pressure

towards tearing this apart, because we all want what we think is right.

[00:27:00] My policy preferences, they do not match up with any party.

I disagree with this party on this thing, and I disagree with that party on that thing.

That's what politics is about.

It's about coordinating with people, but we don't like that.

We want to be able to say, "I want my own choice."

The metaphor that I like here is about going to buy ice cream.

You know, you go for ice cream in the United States and you've got your 31 flavors and

there's a million flavors, different things, and sometimes people say things like, "If

I have 31 choices of ice cream, why can't I have [00:27:30] at least three choices for

politics?"

I can see why people might think that.

The difference is, if we go to the ice cream place and I want chocolate and you want vanilla,

and someone else wants rocky road, well, that's what we'll get.

Each of us gets what we want, and we get to take it home.

Politics isn't like that because we only get to have one president, and we all have to

share.

So, it'd be a little bit like at the end of the day after everyone's gone to buy ice cream,

we tally it up and we found out which ice cream sold the most, and then we all have

to eat the same ice cream.

It'd be a terrible business [00:28:00] model, right?

That's why we don't do that for businesses, but politics is literally ... in some ways

politics is that set of things that we don't get to be that way about.

We all have to have one immigration policy.

We all have to have one tax policy.

Even to the extent that we would say, "Well, different states can do different things."

Right?

That solves that problem.

We all have to either live in a world where every state can set its taxes, or they can't.

And then each state gets to do what it does.

So, [00:28:30] you have to agree on and you'll have to coordinate in some way.

That changes your logic completely.

Now it's not which ice cream flavor is the one that I want the most, it's of the ice

cream flavors that lots of people want, which one do I want the most?

That changes your thinking about it, and therefore drives you to different logic when you're

voting and building parties and everything.

Trevor Burrus: You put it very clearly in the essay, "Perhaps the most important to

draw from Duverger's Law is that voting is not about expressing your opinion, [00:29:00]

it is about coordinating with other voters, and your institutions determine how you must

coordinate."

That says it all right there.

Hans Noel: Exactly.

Trevor Burrus: That gets us into parties, which is number six, where you attack the

fantasy of it seems every election, especially presidential elections that someone is going

to come into Washington and just sit down and put aside partisanship, and just make

good decisions for the country.

Candidates like to say [00:29:30] they'll do this, they like to be outsider candidates

that say that they will do this.

Why don't they do that?

Hans Noel: We saw that just this week.

There's this conversation about whether or not Donald Trump is an independent or not.

It eventually came around to, "Oh, I see this potential for a third party in Donald Trump,"

and journalists love this, they really do.

But, it's a little bit of a strange idea that what matters ... just do good policy.

The reason is, we [00:30:00] disagree on stuff, we really do.

Those disagreements would be easier to set aside ... if we are talking about ice cream,

something where we all can just go our own way, but on a set of things that involve politics,

we don't agree about those things.

Even on the question of let's let people decide.

So, should we have a minimum wage?

Or, should we let businesses go their own way? ... and sort of buy their own ice cream

in terms [00:30:30] of that.

That's a policy decision about they want to live in a world with minimum wage or not,

or if you want to let people define what they think marriage is on their own?

Or, are we going to impose that as a system?

Different people have different census about this is something we have to impose to have

a social sective order, and these are things that we don't.

I don't think that anybody thinks there should be literally nothing that we have.

Okay, we all at the very least follow the traffic laws, and drive on the right side

and not be able to rob, and steal, [00:31:00] and harm one another.

So, what are the things that we have to ... and we disagree.

If we're going to disagree, we may as well disagree in a way that's sort of about systematic,

the thing that parties do is that they encourage people to set aside internal disagreements.

Again, the ice cream metaphor is a question of ... there's your fruit-based ice creams,

and then there's your chocolate-directioned ice creams, and maybe you don't like either

of those, and you're really frustrated.

At the very [00:31:30] least, you could say, "I'm going to go in this direction, and maybe

I really would rather have Oreo something, and instead I'm going to end up with a double

chocolate fudge, but at least they're both in the chocolate direction, and I can sort

out that compromise there."

What parties do is they force groups to form compromises in smaller levels, and then they

go together and say, "Set aside some of our disagreements for the goal of trying to capture

government and implement the things that [00:32:00] we do agree on."

That's how the system is going to work.

Both as a normative thing, it's okay fine, so let's accept parties and expect them to

do that.

Even independent of that, that's what people are going to do.

So, you need to get rid of parties and get rid of this stuff, people are going to coordinate

like that.

The nice thing about parties is it makes it very transparent, and you know which coalition

you're buying yourself into and which one you're supporting and which one you're opposing.

Trevor Burrus: You have a quote from Schattschneider from the 40's, "Democracy is unthinkable."

[00:32:30] Say, in terms of parties, which we always also hear when you study the founding

era that everyone was sort of lamenting the fact that the parties arose, but it seems

that they're necessary.

Hans Noel: The interesting thing, in modern democracy anyway, and you can have a small

scale town hall-type democracy of 20 people maybe, but any kind of modern democracy requires

that.

The interesting thing about the founders is yes, the modern founders said they were, didn't

like the parties, Washington in his farewell address is concerned about factions, Madison's

[00:33:00] worried about factions, and the Federalist papers Jefferson said if he could

only go to Heaven with a party, he'd rather not do it.

And yet, within a few elections, they were building parties.

Trevor Burrus: Oh yeah, they were at each other's throats.

Yes.

Hans Noel: They were going out and organizing, they were saying, "We need to win this election,

so who do I need to win, who are my allies, who are not?"

Even if you didn't want to have parties, people are going to do it.

So, we might as well, from a perspective of trying to organize and understand our [00:33:30]

politics, we have to accept that we have them and then maybe try to steer them in useful

directions, because people out of one side of their mouth say, "Parties are terrible,"

and then the other side of their mouth, actually start to organize them.

I'd much rather it be transparent that that's what they're doing.

Trevor Burrus: I imagine that Jefferson and Hamilton, as leaders of their respective parties,

probably would have said something like, "Well the only reason I am doing this is because

Hamilton is organizing his party," or vice versa, which ultimately we shouldn't [00:34:00]

be doing this, but when you have people on the other side who are organizing, you have

to do it.

Maybe we can get past it someday, and not thinking that, "Nope, we're never going to

get past that."

Hans Noel: It kind of touches back to this idea of if only ...

Trevor Burrus: If only they would stop, that's the thing-

Hans Noel: If only they would stop-

Trevor Burrus: Yes.

Hans Noel: The other side is doing it, I'm only doing it because they're doing it.

I think a lot of the founders had this idea that we talked about a little bit earlier,

about there really is some public will, [00:34:30] and I am on the side of what's in the interest,

and then their interest in special interests-

Trevor Burrus: They're a faction.

There are special interests.

Hans Noel: They're a faction, they're special interests, but I am not.

I think that's where a lot of it grows.

Like sort of just re-appreciate that that's not really how things work.

Then, the naïveté of trying to get rid of parties becomes seen as exactly that naïveté.

Trevor Burrus: I studied the Founding Era a lot, because I do constitutional law here

as one of the things, and you look at opinions [00:35:00] about public opinion, which to

me are some of the most fascinating opinions around.

Not so much your own opinion, but a person's opinion about how other people form their

opinions.

Those are usually incredibly biased and partisan to ... they're just being manipulated by their

party, whereas my party is not manipulating anyone.

They are being manipulated by their donors, well, we're not being manipulated at all.

Of course, you see that throughout all of American history.

Hans Noel: Yes.

Trevor Burrus: That's a good way to [00:35:30] go into number seven, which is, "How most

independents are closet partisans."

We talk about independents all the time as this great, rare thing out there with people

who just dispassionately look at the issues and have a voting record that goes back and

forth between parties, but that's kind of a myth, isn't it?

Hans Noel: Yeah, I'm sure that there are some people who are like that, who really is paying

a lot of attention and thinking through all of the issues, and building on several of

the points that we've [00:36:00] mentioned already; if people don't have the will to

find opinions, and if they also don't pay attention a little bit, and they need the

ques to help figure out what they're thinking, and if politics is organized by elite sense

of parties, then when you go to vote, it's probably not the case that you're carefully

evaluating the two choices.

You kind of are leaning in one direction, or another.

One of the things that we've found is while it is in the case that more and more people

today claim to be independent than used to be.

Though if you ask, if you are you a Democrat or Republican, or [00:36:30] you're independent,

it's, "Oh, I'm an independent."

But, the increase in people who are independent is mostly amongst people who still, when they

go to vote, vote consistently for their party and not for the other.

It's not something that's very sensible to say, well this huge group of voters out

there that are up for grabs, because most of them actually aren't.

One of the interesting things about this, I don't want to diminish the importance of

independence, because there is a change there, and it must mean something.

There's a really great book by Samara Klar and Yanna Krupnikov, it's just [00:37:00]

out a couple of years ago, on the subject of independent voters.

What one of the things that they find is that people are more likely to say that they are

independent when you remind them that politics can be contentious and some people in politics

are nasty, and hostile, and jerks.

Part of it is, people are just like, "People are mean and they argue with each other, and

I just want a sensible common sense compromise, that's what I would like to have," and so

then that's what they say [00:37:30] that's what they want, and they say that they're

independent.

Of course, what most of us, when we want a sensible compromise, what we really want is

we want the other side, that's crazy, to compromise.

There's some research on this too, there's a nice piece by Laurel Harbridge and Neil

Malhotra, I think, that shines where they asked people, "What do you want in terms of

a compromise?" and, what they mostly boiled it down to is they'd like the other side to

stop being so intransigent and to [00:38:00] come over to where they are for us.

Trevor Burrus: Yes.

Hans Noel: So, that's common sense.

People would think that way, and if so, it's sort of not surprising.

But, as a consequence, it's not reasonable to say, "Most people are independent," most

people have chosen sides, and what they believe is going to be shaped by what side they're

on, so really what we have is this contest between the two sides and therefore it very

much matters what the leaders of those two sides decide what the battle lines are going

to be about.

Trevor Burrus: That's the common sense phrase, which aggravates [00:38:30] me to no end,

sort of always betrays that.

We see common sense solutions to "x", which of course is considered crazy by the other

side.

Hans Noel: Right.

Trevor Burrus: The other interesting thing about independents is the idea of someone

who is super interested in politics, but does not have partisan allegiances.

It's kind of ... someone who is really independent probably doesn't care about politics at all,

correct?

Hans Noel: Yeah, you think that.

Again, [00:39:00] there are surely some people like that.

Anybody who is like that, or really cares about politics but they're kind of "above

the fray," they might be the person who's listening to this podcast.

For the most part, no, people like that tend to take sides.

Even if you don't think that you're taking sides, odds are you probably are still tend

to find one side to be more persuasive than the other, and therefore you're going to lean

in that direction.

Even if you think you're arriving at an independent decision every time.

Trevor Burrus: Number eight is a provocative [00:39:30] sentence, especially for this town

and Washington D.C. where I am, that "Special interests are a political fiction."

Hans Noel: Yeah, I think it's built on the topics that we've just been discussing over

the last couple of items here, in that we like to think there's some right thing that's

common sense, or is the general in everyone's interest, and then there's these special interests

that are there trying to undermine things.

The problem is like, "What's a special interest?"

A special interest is any interest that is mainly shared by a particular group and not

everyone.

We have [00:40:00] diverse society, and there's almost nothing that we all want exactly the

same.

Even the things that we broadly all want, we're still going to have one of them accomplished

in slightly different ways.

So what is the special interest?

The special interests are business leaders, that's a special interest, and labor groups,

they're a special interest.

They disagree on things, so they both have their interests.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice activists are going to be that, just about anything that you can

imagine is going to be a particular group, and that's everybody.

A reasonable approximation of what a special interest is, [00:40:30] is it's the interest

of anybody whose not me because what they want is not what's in the common good.

Of course, whatever I want is in the common good.

Again, we're echoing this notion about common sense principles and compromise.

This is what the founders understood as a problem.

The founders said, "We've got all these different groups, these different factions, we can't

expect them all to agree, we can't expect people not to have their difference, so we'll

just try to have a system that prevents them from organizing."

[00:41:00] Political parties do more organizing than Madison imagined would happen in when

he was riding his federal stint, but that landscape of people who want different things

is sort of how political scientists approach things.

We come to this and say, "There's a lot of different interests, and how are we going

to aggregate them, the other parties, what's their ideology, what sort of structure is

this?"

But we approach this question initially as there's lots of diversity in what people want,

and we don't tend to imagine that there exists some kind of general interest [00:41:30] that

if only we could just set aside our biases, we could arrive at a good policy.

We recognize that just about every policy affect help some people, and maybe doesn't

help some other people, and that's what political conflict is about.

Trevor Burrus: Yeah, you're right that the most important distinction is not between

special and general interests, but between organized interests and unorganized interests.

Hans Noel: Exactly, yes.

When you think about some broad groups that are maybe thinking policy doesn't help, and

it's [00:42:00] not helpful for those groups, so, I think this is a classic example of this

is the unemployed.

There is a large group of people who perhaps face difficult just because they are losing

their jobs, but that group changes from year to year.

Some people, first are unemployed now, and they're not later, and so policies that might

help the unemployed and help reduce the unemployment level, or whatever else, are hard to do because

that group isn't going to organize it in the same way that say, a religious group is going

to organize whether this group always identifies that [00:42:30] way, and they're going to

move, or a racial ethnic group is going to say, "We have particular interests, and we

know who we are."

So, organization is important.

Again, cutting back to political parties, there is a certain way, which this whole essay

could have been about the importance of political parties in one way or another, because one

of the things the parties is they help to mobilize and organize otherwise potentially

unorganized groups, and pay attention to policies that might sort of bring a bunch of small

diffuse groups ... bring them together, [00:43:00] and form a majority coalition.

Without somebody doing that, the interests of certain groups are going to be under-represented.

Trevor Burrus: Number nine, I think grows from this too, "The grass does not grow by

itself," which is the question of what is a real grassroots movement versus what is

an AstroTurf, and I think this question is very tied to things we've discussed where

a lot of people ... they think the other side is somehow faking their political coalition,

or it's somehow created by dastardly and special interests who are manipulating [00:43:30]

public opinions.

All these things we've already discussed, whereas my grassroots movement is real and

natural.

Why is it that this whole attitude is mistaken?

Hans Noel: I think that's exactly what I meant.

I wrote this essay right as the Tea Party was becoming a major movement, and so a lot

of people were saying that "The Tea Party isn't really this movement, it's just the

Koch brothers, or the so and so is fueling this," and no one really has these grievances.

The thing is, you could point to organizers, you could point to groups who are doing things

to [00:44:00] mobilize the Tea Party Activists, you could point to Fox News running news stories

that were clearly having the effect of mobilizing people and making them think of themselves

as part of a movement.

So then you're like, "Oh, that's what's happening."

But, that's always the case.

Every movement is like that.

The Civil Rights Movement had leaders who were mobilizing and the like.

I think, again, it's sort of unfortunate that we want to imagine that people just wake up

one morning and say, "I'm frustrated, and I'm just going to walk down the street, and

if I'm [00:44:30] lucky, maybe when I get to the town square, there will be other people

who are also frustrated, and we'll have a protest."

All protest is going to get organized in some way.

Now, you've got the flip side where you have the town hall meetings where people are showing

up and it was before to people showing up at the town hall meetings ... it was liberals

who were saying the only people who are coming are being dragged there by some nefarious

funding organization.

Now, it's "No, no, Soros is paying these protestors to go these [00:45:00] groups."

Nobody is pulling out a checkbook and paying protestors to show up at these things, but

someone is mobilizing them.

They're saying, "Hey look, there's going to be this town hall meeting, you've got to go

down there and talk, and we need you to come and we need to have a larger voice."

So, again, that's the dynamic of grassroots popular politics requires that kind of seating.

The difference is, if there was nothing [00:45:30] to mobilize, or no public opinion to get down

there, then people wouldn't respond, you'd say, "Oh, we have to go down there and protest

against this policy that's going to raise marginal tax rates on the wealthiest people;

I'm the Koch brothers, and I don't want that to happen."

No one is going to show up, unless there is some interest.

That's not the message that they have, they sell the message in some other direction and

if you don't like that message, then that's a concern.

But your concern is not just with the Soros or [00:46:00] the Koch brothers, it's also

with the other voters who brought that message and then went and were mobilized by it.

Trevor Burrus: Number ten, is all these things that political scientists know.

Number ten is, "We do not know what you think you know," which is the things that a lot

of myths that people believe about politics.

Hans Noel: Yeah, and a big part of what was behind my mind as I was writing this essay,

and then I'm thinking about in general on this, is some of the things that we say, including

some of the things that we've said in the last hour that we've been talking, [00:46:30]

people are like, "Oh well, that's obvious."

Of course, the mandate is just a rhetorical thing, and that's obvious.

A part of that is, yeah, it's obvious now that we laid it out and we had some people

went out and found examples and so forth, but the exact opposite could have seemed obvious

to you, too.

That's part of what social science is about, is taking some things, some of which seem

obvious, and sorting it out and figuring it out.

Is this really what's going on, or is it not?

There's a lot of "seems obvious" things that we don't think are true.

[00:47:00] One of the really common ones that political scientists get upset a lot about

is this idea that gerrymandering is what's responsible for polarization.

I think there probably is some kind of gerrymandering ... that the way in which districts are drawn

does have consequences, but among their consequences is probably not that you have increased polarization.

It's not like you draw lots of safe Republican districts, and lots of safe Democratic districts.

If you think about it a little bit, it actually doesn't make sense that gerrymandering would

do this because if I was a partisan person, [00:47:30] I wouldn't want to draw districts

that would be good for both parties, I want to make them good for my party, and not good

for the other party.

Then of course the other party is going to be pushed back the other direction, and you're

going to end up with changes.

We don't think that gerrymandering is why polarization, and of course one way that we

know that is not true is that if were the case, that changing and drawing districts

is what is causing things to become more polarized, then you'd see polarization in the house that

we draw districts.

Well, we wouldn't see polarization in the senate, because those districts are states

and have [00:48:00] been the same since the beginning.

In fact, you do see polarization in the senate, so that suggests that polarization is about

something more than just Gerrymandering districts.

People all around think the way to solve polarization is to get rid of gerrymandering districts,

and like I say, there might be other consequences of gerrymandering that we're concerned about,

but that is not probably one of them.

We have this, "What exactly is the story of polarization?"

That, I don't know.

I have a bunch of theories about what might be driving things, but we try to disabuse

people [00:48:30] of some things that we think that they do now, but the real tricky thing,

and the real point of this last item in the list is, there's a lot of stuff that we don't

know, and it might be that it really matters.

How much affects does the economy have versus a campaign?

I don't know exactly what the numbers are, but this is why we keep doing research and

we keep trying to find good answers.

Trevor Burrus: Maybe the most common belief, I don't know if this is true, but belief about

congress in Washington D.C. is that everyone is sort of purchased by their " [00:49:00]

special interests," and money just buys the votes of your average congressman.

Even this widely-accepted truism, which I'm sure most people think that political scientists

can easily prove, is not easily provable.

Hans Noel: Yeah, one obvious alternative explanation is it's not so much that I want certain outcomes,

so I'm going to bribe you, well I'm going to give money to the kind of candidate who

I think is going to do the things that I want.

So then, [00:49:30] the pharmaceutical industry gives money to a candidate, and then that

candidate does good things for the pharmaceutical industry, or maybe it's because what that

guy would have done, anyway.

There probably is some influence of money.

We think most of it is actually more about access than bribing.

So, it's not like if I give this donation from this interest group, or this pack, then

I'm going to do whatever that pack wants.

Honestly, you could just go somewhere else, if that was the case, right?

You could say, "Okay, fine.

I know you're voting that for that thing, it's going to be bad for my constituents,

[00:50:00] I can find resources someplace else on that one thing."

What's more likely is the pharmaceutical industry, or whatever the pack is, now they get some

access.

They get to come talk and influence things.

That might have some consequences, but it's much more indirect.

Trevor Burrus: Yeah.

Hans Noel: It's more about signaling ... of course, politicians are like, "I don't know

what the right policy is.

I've got a bunch of different things.

This group has a lot of money, and a lot of organized, and they say this is a good idea,

well maybe I'll listen to that."

It may not even be a bad idea to have that ability for different groups to organize [00:50:30]

and try to impress folks.

We talk about lobbying as if it's some kind of nafarious vote-buying kind of thing, but

a logic on lobbying is just here's some people who know a lot about something, they're going

to camp out in the lobby and try to tell us stuff.

Yeah, that's at least not obviously a problem.

So, how big of it if one of the consequences ... I think money does have some pretty serious

affects on politics, but it's very tricky to figure out exactly what it is.

Trevor Burrus: It would be a strange way to try and change the world.

I often [00:51:00] make an analogy, let's say there was a billionaire who was a flat-earther,

who was trying to change the world and make sure that we could have better policies for

a flat earth, it would be a weird strategy to find politicians who do not currently believe

in the flat earth position and give them enough money until they believe it, as opposed to

finding people who believe in flat earth and then giving them money to try and get them

elected.

Hans Noel: Yeah, that's a much more reasonable strategy.

Part of it becomes you don't even need to [00:51:30] do that because what political

parties are doing is they're recruiting people who believe in a whole host of ideological

things, and if flat earth becomes part of what it means to be one of the parties, then

you're going to bring along people who are educated in that information environment and

so you end up with flat earth sort of bonus from supporting that ideology.

If flat earth were to be that thing.

Yeah, I think that exactly makes more sense, but we've both described a way now in which

money could influence outcomes, [00:52:00] it's just more complicated and so it makes

sense for her to think about how does that work.

Then, what kind of policies should we implement?

If it's the case that the way in which money influences outcomes, isn't by buying people

of straight, but is by steering and shaping things.

Then, one thing that I would imagine is the more in which that money goes through central

organizations like political parties, where they have to balance off lots and lots of

interests, that's better, whereas [00:52:30] the money is going straight at people and

then they can mobilize a flat earth person and just get flat earth people on the party's

platform.

We should have camping finance regulations that don't undermine parties, but undermine

individual contributions for example.

That's one plausible thing, if that's the case.

There's some research that suggests that that's what you ought to do.

There's a book by Ray La Raja and Brian Schaffner that makes that ... I don't know if that's

right, and I've talked to lots of really smart people in campaign finance who don't think

that's true, I don't know, [00:53:00] and that's exactly the point.

We're not quite sure about exactly how it is that money influences outcomes.

Trevor Burrus: When we look at our politics, and I'm not sure if it's opinions about politics,

or opinions about Washington, D.C. have ever been lower than they are today, shared by

both sides, and we have Donald Trump, much to everyone's surprise, and polarization and

all these things.

One lesson I think people can learn from your excellent essay, and I'm excited about the

forthcoming book, is we might be expecting too much from politics.

If [00:53:30] we don't accept it as sort of a nitty-gritty, "This is how we hash out compromises

and make deals," then we might actually have a difficulty using politics for what it is,

which is a way of trying to get people with many different interests and attitudes to

live together cooperatively, rather than combatively.

Hans Noel: That's a fair reading.

We do have a large expectation.

We want things to work, and the same goes beyond politics.

"Why is this traffic this [00:54:00] way," or "Why do these roads steer in this direction,"

and, "Why can't we have a better more effective way of getting to the beach," and all these

other things we just think that somebody -they- did it wrong.

The difference is in politics it's actually a place where we are able to influence and

get involved in outcomes.

It's not just being angry at the system, we could actually participate in it.

So, yeah, it would make a lot more sense to appreciate that what we could expect out of

it won't [00:54:30] be a policy that makes you happy, or that makes me happy, but it's

going to be something that's going to be from an algorithm of the various forces that were

allowed in to the system.

Trevor Burrus: I think that's a good ending, unless there's something that you think I

missed.

Hans Noel: One final thought I'd make for people who are going to be steered towards

this article is that a lot of people read it, I think it's a good piece, I'm glad to

have written it, I am writing a book link version, and part of the reason I'm writing

a book link version [00:55:00] is because there's been a lot of demand for it, but also

because some of the stuff that's in the piece ... social science has marched on, and we

have a better understanding of things, and I would say things slightly differently here.

Which isn't going to say I can give you all the caveats here, but that's part of the

point about social science, it's that we keep learning, we keep building on things.

Yet, there are some sort of enduring things, you don't need to be up on the latest research

to know what's going on.

The important thing is that you have access to a political science journal, and the important

thing is that you have access to your sophomore [00:55:30] in political science lecture notes

in a lot of ways, because there are some enduring things to be found there.

If you find out in the article that I wrote, that's great, but you can also get that from

your own education.

Trevor Burrus: Thanks for listening.

This episode of Free Thoughts was produced by Tess Terrible and Evan Banks.

To learn more, visit us on the web at www.libertarianism.org.

For more infomation >> Free Thoughts, Ep. 205: Ten Things Political Scientists Know That You Don't (with Hans Noel) - Duration: 56:01.

-------------------------------------------

奇跡体験!アンビリバボー 世界が涙した感動実話!麻薬中毒のストリートミュージシャンとノラ猫の固い絆・友情物語! - Duration: 22:19.

For more infomation >> 奇跡体験!アンビリバボー 世界が涙した感動実話!麻薬中毒のストリートミュージシャンとノラ猫の固い絆・友情物語! - Duration: 22:19.

-------------------------------------------

Embracing Our Humanity On Letting Go of Fear To Step Into Our Po - Duration: 5:01.

Embracing Our Humanity: On Letting Go of Fear To Step Into Our Power

�What is tolerance?

It is the consequence of humanity.

We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other�s folly

� that is the first law of nature.� ~ Voltaire

Embracing Our Humanity

With the many crazy things happening in the world at the moment, it can feel quite challenging

not to blame outside circumstances for how tormented, anxious, and scared we might feel

at times.

And even though pointing the finger and putting the blame on forces outside of us might feel

like the right thing to do, it�s so important not to fall into this trap.

Blaming outside forces for how we feel is nothing but a trap that�s meant to make

us feel small, powerless and quite helpless.

And we are far from that.

We can�t always understand why horrible things happen to good people, and why do we

have to put up with the madness of certain people (often called, �world leaders�).

But if we look back in history, we discover a pattern, a tendency for people to harm one

another and to inflict pain on their fellow human beings�

I guess that�s all part of our humanity.

All part of who we are.

We are humanity

�My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together.� ~ Desmond Tutu

To be human is to have both the Light and the dark in you.

To be capable of love but also of hating and harming your fellow human beings in ways that

make you cringe.

But that doesn�t mean we can�t evolve past our darkness.

It doesn�t mean we can�t move past our own madness.

It�s true that we humans can be quite cruel and brutal with one another, but it�s also

true that we are capable of loving each other with a love so strong, so deep, and so pure,

that can actually dissolve all darkness and turn it into Light.

Take Gandhi and Mother Teresa for example.

You might think they were special and that�s the only reason they were capable of living

and loving as much as they did.

But that�s just a lie.

These people were made from the same material that you and I are made of.

And the only difference between us and them is that they believed that love could conquer

all, and we don�t.

That�s the only difference.

Marianne Williamson was right,

�Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.

We ask ourselves, �Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?� Actually,

who are you not to be?

It�s not just in some of us; it�s in everyone.� ~ Marianne Williamson

We are afraid to claim our own strength and power.

Afraid to embrace all of ourselves.

And since we give fear so much power over us, we shrink and we perceive ourselves as

being small, powerless and insignificant.

But there is no need to fear.

No need to hate.

And no need to perceive ourselves as victims.

Because we aren�t!

This world we live in is nothing but a mirror, a reflection of who we ourselves are.

And if we want to live in a better world; if we want to have peace and harmony, we first

need to learn to live in peace and harmony with our own humanity, our own darkness, and

our own imperfections.

Because just as the wise Carl Jung once said it,

�Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darknesses of other people.�

� Carl Jung I know you might think that there is no darkness

in you and that darkness is only present out there.

But the only reason you perceive darkness in the world is that there is darkness in

you.

You are a human being and you have in you all that you see out there in the world � good,

bad, beautiful, and ugly � it�s all in you.

It�s all part of being human.

And by learning to accept, embrace, and make peace with all that you are, you will be able

to forgive the world for being the way it is.

And through your forgiveness, the veil will be lifted from your eyes and you will realize

that by forgiving the world, you were, in fact, forgiving yourself.

For more infomation >> Embracing Our Humanity On Letting Go of Fear To Step Into Our Po - Duration: 5:01.

-------------------------------------------

Games2Rule G2R - Abandoned Mysterious House Escape Walkthrough 2017 - Duration: 10:33.

Games2Rule G2R - Abandoned Mysterious House Escape

For more infomation >> Games2Rule G2R - Abandoned Mysterious House Escape Walkthrough 2017 - Duration: 10:33.

-------------------------------------------

Pedro Pascal presenta 'Kingsman: El círculo de oro' - Duration: 1:34.

For more infomation >> Pedro Pascal presenta 'Kingsman: El círculo de oro' - Duration: 1:34.

-------------------------------------------

Latest Stylish Kurti Kurta | Beautifull Stylish Kurti 2017-2018 | BY DAHAB COLLECTION - Duration: 2:46.

Latest Stylish Kurti Kurta | Beautifull Stylish Kurti 2017-2018 | BY DAHAB COLLECTION

Latest Stylish Kurti Kurta | Beautifull Stylish Kurti 2017-2018 | BY DAHAB COLLECTION

Latest Stylish Kurti Kurta | Beautifull Stylish Kurti 2017-2018 | BY DAHAB COLLECTION

For more infomation >> Latest Stylish Kurti Kurta | Beautifull Stylish Kurti 2017-2018 | BY DAHAB COLLECTION - Duration: 2:46.

-------------------------------------------

Khoka Babu Full Episode 22 Sep 2017 - Duration: 2:15.

Khoka Babu Full Episode 22 Sep 2017

Khoka Babu Full Episode 22 Sep 2017

For more infomation >> Khoka Babu Full Episode 22 Sep 2017 - Duration: 2:15.

-------------------------------------------

September 23, 2017 & The Great Tribulation - Duration: 14:49.

September 23, 2017 & The Great Tribulation

33 Day Cosmic Window Closes on September 23rd

Who has not witnessed the dramatic uptick in societal chaos and regional disruption

throughout the USA since the �Great American Eclipse�?

What follows are just a few of the manmade-natural events which were carried out against the

American people by those who have sought to destroy the Republic.

� Hurricane Harvey � The most devastating superstorm in East Texas history that put

much of Houston under water

� Los Angeles Fires � �Largest ever� wildfires in Los Angeles County history triggered

some of the biggest evacuations in California history

� Northwest Fires � Worst ever wildfires and particularly destructive in Montana, Idaho,

Utah, Oregon and Washington states and showing no signs of letting up in Montana

� Hurricane Irma � An unparalleled mega-storm with major wind damage and flooding throughout

Florida as South Carolina and Georgia were also hit

� Hurricane Maria � The Caribbean Islands are now receiving the full force of this Category

4 hurricane as it plots an extremely destructive path toward the U.S. mainland

33 Day Window

In seven days, on Saturday, September 23rd, a 33 day cosmic window will shut that opened

on Monday, August 21, 2017.

This particular date has been foreordained by the heavens for eons.

As follows: September 23rd, 2017: A Cosmic Convergence Of Heavenly Proportions

This unparalleled period of karmic blowback began with the total solar eclipse that passed

directly over the United States on August 21st.

The Great American Eclipse: A Defining Moment In U.S. History

Very few people realize just how deeply transformative this celestial event has been for the nation

and its citizens.

Fewer understand the greater context associated with the 33-day cosmic window that was opened

during that uniquely American eclipse.

The more folks who truly apprehend the enormity and profundity of this highly consequential

interval, the more likely that a successful outcome will result.

Just why is that?

Ordo Ab Chao: MO of the Illuminati

Let�s be clear: the entire planetary civilization has experienced a significant increase in

unpredictable and unsettling events since the U.S. presidential election of 2016.

All of this unprecedented pandemonium has been orchestrated by purposeful design.

Those who have controlled the destiny of humankind for centuries are at a crossroads and must

implement their misguided agenda now or forever be denied its fulfillment.

The power elite are especially aware that their flawed version of technological singularity

has reached a critical milestone.

Technological Singularity: Humanity Stands at the Edge of the AI Abyss

It�s for this and other reasons that the aforementioned 33-day window of opportunity

to sow seeds of chaos has been taken advantage of.

TPTB know full well that this is the last chance to execute the key parts of their New

World Order agenda leading to the establishment of a One World Government.

This is precisely why the geoengineers are deliberately manufacturing so much weather

mayhem.

The more destructive and deadly the current spate of superstorms are, the more consensus

TPTB can elicit from the world community of nations.

In this way they hope to foist their defective CO2-driven climate change narrative on all

of humanity because ultimately the: NWO Cabal Pursues Total Dominion Over The Earth�s

Weather And Natural Resources

It�s crucial to understand that nothing causes more chaos, more quickly, than Illuminati-directed

acts of weather warfare.[1] This has just been experienced in two of the largest states

in the union�Texas and Florida.

Both states have been deeply affected by HARVEY and IRMA, respectively, and will take years

to recover from some of the worst damage.

Hurricane Harvey: A Geoengineered Superstorm Targets Texas�WHY?

IRMAGEDDON: Who geoengineered Superstorm Irma and why?

The bottom line regarding the increasingly weaponized weather and transparent environmental

terrorism is Ordo Ab Chao.

In the aftermath of so much manmade disaster and natural catastrophe, the cabal is able

to quite easily impose a new order on a city, a state, or a nation marked by excessive control.

The residents in Key West are victims of this FEMA command and control structure at this

very moment.

*Ordo Ab Chao = Creating a predetermined order out of manufactured chaos

This is exactly what TPTB have always done in the advancement of a One World Government

via disaster capitalism.

Clearly, weather warfare and climate engineering will continue to be their primary MO by which

they continue to lock down planet Earth.

Hurricane Jose

No one knows where Hurricane Jose is going at this point although the models show it

moving toward the Northeast U.S..

However, a close look at U.S. hurricane history reveals that many of these superstorms that

hit the mainland are fabricated in threes, fours and fives.

In 2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Jose would make a threesome should JOSE become a destructive

superstorm like the other two.

Should it fail to, Hurricane Maria is likely to complete the triad.

Hurricane Maria Causes �Widespread Devastation� In Dominica As It Races Toward Puerto Rico

�In fact Hurricane Harvey, just like the 3 sisters of 2005 � Hurricanes Katrina,

Rita and Wilma � was a deliberately geoengineered storm that had many other purposes.�

JOSE could also complete a tetrad after Maria hits, which the weather controllers have obviously

had on their drawing board ever since President Trump took office.

There�s no question that JOSE has been geoengineered from its very beginnings off the coast of

West Africa.

Proof Hurricane Jose Manmade

In light of how much time and energy the geoengineers have spent fastidiously fabricating this frankenstorm,

it�s unlikely (though still possible) that they will just let it peter out in the Atlantic

Ocean.

At this pivotal stage of the 33-day window that closes next Saturday, it�s difficult

to imagine that the cabal will permit Hurricane Jose to come to nothing.

If the future bears out the worst case scenario for JOSE, it will most likely be steered similarly

to Superstorm Sandy.

In this way the shadow government will use it as a catalyst which will precipitate a

whole cascade of Ordo Ab Chao events just like 9/11 did.

Were JOSE to hit the greater New York City metropolitan area, it would likely trigger

and epidemic of 9/11-type PTSD symptoms, especially coming so close to the 9/11/17 anniversary.

Hurricane Jose: The Geoengineered Secret Weapon

The wise would be well-served to keep their eye on JOSE, and be ready to respond at a

moment�s notice.

Don�t get blindsided like the good folks did in East Texas by HARVEY.

9/11 Terror Attacks: The Mother of all false flag operations�until now

This rapidly developing situation regarding JOSE brings up the following important point.

That the �Ultimate False Flag Operation� is one that:

Blames Mother Nature for Terror Attacks Using Weather Weapons of Mass Destruction

Isn�t that true?

Where else does one see the NWO cabal perpetrate unprovoked acts of aggression which lead to

widespread death and destruction like that seen in the wake of a 1000 year flood or mega-hurricane?

In other words TPTB can get away with destroying a city or wrecking a coastline using weather

weaponry by blaming it on Mother Nature.

How else can the power elite attack the entire state of Florida, and get away scot-free?!

Rare planetary configuration in constellations Virgo and Leo on September 23, 2017

September 23, 2017

This final week leading up to Saturday, September 23rd promises to be as society-busting as

any since 9/11/01.

The resulting paradigm-shift will surely open up new doorways of perception for the whole

human race.

This is fundamentally a VERY good thing.

Whenever men of science and technology harness the forces of Mother Earth and aim them at

defenseless targets around the globe, an awakening happens.

Not only are many people humbled by such a show of raw and overwhelming force, others

are awakened to the truth of the weather warfare occurring everywhere�24/7.

These unending weather assaults, then, are serving as much-needed wake-up calls.

Eventually everyone will be �shock & awed� with one weather calamity after another, or

by a wildfire conflagration, or a devastating earthquake, all of which can be manmade and

often are.

In this manner, a critical mass of souls will become aware that weaponized geoengineering

and weather warfare constitute the single greatest threats to humanity, and there are

many other perils out there.

These revelations represent the primary realizations that are spreading like wildfire throughout

America and the world-at-large as we approach 9/23/17.

As each hurricane blows through a different region, the consciousness is refreshed by

the cleansing rains and winds to make way for these truths.

Wherever an earthquake or mudslide or sinkhole should strike without warning, those affected

are shocked into a new way of understanding what really causes such earth movements.

In this fashion, September 23rd is functioning as a rebirth for the present tract of humanity.

September 23, 2017: Jupiter, Virgo and the Coming Rebirth However, what is essential

to correctly comprehend is that no birth, or rebirth, is without its birth pangs.

Therefore, September 23rd ought to be perceived as the junction point for a cosmic rite of

passage.

Such rites always come with various challenges and obstacles, trials and tribulations.

The Great Tribulation

Some religious writers and social commentators have referred to the upcoming period as the

Great Tribulation.

The Great Tribulation & The MOEDIM

In this particular context, the Fall of 2017 marks the beginning of a 7-year period that

is defined by September 23rd.

Whether this specific date is the line of demarcation for the start of the Great Tribulation

remains to be seen.

Regardless of what does or does not transpire after the 23rd, there is a palpable desperation

seen and heard and felt as never before.

Those who have forever held the reins of global governance seem to have lost their hold, as

well as their minds.

The major events that are now taking place across the planet with increasing intensity

reflect this unmistakable air of desperation and insanity.

�Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad�

Because those who operate at the very peak of the pinnacle of the planetary power pyramid

are in competition with each other for the very first time, things have gotten really

crazy out there.

For instance, these crazymakers want to normalize and legalize everything that they have indulged

in over millennia.

The systematic legalization of recreational drugs and pedophilia are just two examples

of their handiwork.

�When the gods wish to destroy a wicked tyrant, they inspire the madness in him to

lose himself.

Drugs are among their armaments.

Their irrational and immoderate intrusion signals the imminent end of the species at

the end of Kali Yuga.�

What else could result but the Great Tribulation from such an irrational state of affairs both

locally and globally?

The Great Tribulation does not bode well for the Modern State of Israel

Conclusion

When the top leaders of the world are incorrigible, criminally insane psychopaths, nations and

societies everywhere will suffer terribly.

The more unaware the common people are of this worsening predicament, the more difficult

their �Tribulation� will be.

That�s why it�s imperative to share information about the weather warfare being waged against

nations large and small.

The constant geoengineering of the realm has put the biosphere in great jeopardy.

Some climate trends have been irreversibly altered; likewise, weather patterns everywhere

are being irreparably disrupted.

This can only lead to global chaos which the elites will use to justify a tyrannical One

World Government.

Basically, whoever controls the weather controls the whole place.

In light of this pervasive plight, every inhabitant of this planet is highly encouraged to invoke

the Highest Power for urgent assistance.

For it is only through divine intervention that an enduring resolution will manifest.

We are now just seconds to midnight and but moments away from an ELE that can come from

any direction.

*ELE = Extinction Level Event

There is perhaps nothing more dangerous to mankind than the escalation of the weather

wars.

Hence, there must be an immediate airing of those dangers and risks to the civilization.

In the current tense environment everyone has become a stakeholder.

Everyone wants their say about adverse weather manipulation as it can affect every aspect

of life.

Since no one wants to be left out of the public discourse, the best way to influence it is

to pray for divine intercession�post-haste before JOSE shows up in someone�s back yard.

For more infomation >> September 23, 2017 & The Great Tribulation - Duration: 14:49.

-------------------------------------------

How To Shave Your Head With Straight Razor | Bald video live on youtube - Duration: 0:49.

subscribe now

subscribe now

subscribe now

subscribe now

subscribe now

For more infomation >> How To Shave Your Head With Straight Razor | Bald video live on youtube - Duration: 0:49.

-------------------------------------------

10 Psychological Tricks That Really Work - Duration: 4:29.

10 Psychological Tricks That Really Work

"The human mind is not a terribly logical or consistent place," wrote Jim Butcher.

This is an understatement.

The human mind is, in fact, a complete madhouse.

This can be frustrating when the psychological workings of others keep them from appreciating

our ideas.

It can be wonderful however, when we learn to embrace the chaos and use it to our advantage.

So, in this video I'm going to show you 10 psychological tricks that really work for

that sole purpose.

Likewise, if you find this information is helpful to you, make sure to like this video

and subscribe our channel so you won't miss any interesting update in the future guys!

Here are ten psychological tricks that can help you to get what you want:

1.

If you want to win over a person who doesn't seem to like you, ask them for a very small

favor.

Most people will not refuse to help another person with something trivial.

This will put them in a collaborative mindset and help them to see you as a team member.

2.

If you find yourself struggling to make a path through a crowded place, set your gaze

directly at your destination.

People will subconsciously be looking to the eyes of those around them in order to forge

their own path.

As such, they will inherently understand where you are going and make way.

3.

If you want someone to help you carry something, hand it to them while you are speaking.

Most people will be paying more attention to your words than your actions and take the

package instinctively.

Even if they are distracted, they would likely rather help than interrupt you mid-sentence.

4.

If you would like to know whether or not someone has their eye on you, yawn.

If they are watching you, they will likely copy this action involuntarily.

5.

If you want someone to behave a certain way, give them choices within the bounds of the

desired behavior.

For example, instead of "Will you please eat a vegetable with your dinner?", ask

"Would you like me to make carrots tonight, or would you rather have green beans?".

This gives the other person a sense of control and makes them think the decision was their

own.

6.

If you want someone to think you are a fantastic listener, paraphrase their words back to them.

Be subtle with this tactic.

Don't mirror their words too exactly.

7.

If you have a song stuck in your head and it's driving you crazy, follow it all the

way to the end.

It's harder to shake a song if our brain thinks that we're leaving it unfinished.

8.

If you want someone to agree with your position, nod while you are explaining it.

Most likely, your audience will unintentionally mimic you.

Because they are nodding while they hear your words, they will become predisposed to agree

with them.

Nodding is also a sign of trustworthiness and confidence in your position.

Avoid shaking your head for the same reasons.

9.

If you want someone to like you, warm your hands before you shake theirs.

Warm hands put people at ease, while cold ones make them feel guarded and uncomfortable.

10.

If you want people to believe that you are giving them great advice, tell them that you

learned this from your mother or father or grandparent.

People give more weight to advice from an older family member, especially if you speak

about them with respect and authority.

Do you doubt the power of some of these tricks?

Go try them today.

You'll be surprised at how effective a little snippet of psychology can be.

Use these tactics to give an edge to your speeches, relationships, and work performance.

After all, as George Harrison once said, "It's all in the mind."

So, really cool information isn't it?

I'd like to see your opinions on this and please do share your thoughts and experiences

in the comments below!

Don't forget to give us account subs and watch other amazing videos on our channel.

Thanks for watching!

1 nhận xét:

  1. JOINING THE ILLUMINATI BRINGS YOU INTO THE LIMELIGHT OF THE WORLD IN WHICH
    YOU LIVE IN TODAY. YOUR FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES ARE BROUGHT TO AN END. WE
    SUPPORT YOU BOTH FINANCIALLY AND MATERIALLY TO ENSURE YOU LIVE A
    COMFORTABLE LIFE. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH PART OF THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN.

    FROM THE UNITED STATES DOWN TO THE MOST REMOTE PART OF THE EARTH, WE BRING
    YOU ALL YOU WANT.

    BEING AN ILLITERATE OR A LITERATE IS NOT A BARRIER TO BEING A MILLIONAIRE
    BETWEEN TODAY AND THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.

    YOU BEING IN THIS OUR OFFICIAL WEBSITE TODAY SIGNIFIES THAT IT WAS ORDERED
    AND ARRANGED BY THE GREAT LUCIFER THAT FROM NOW ON, YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE
    THAT REAL AND INDEPENDENT HUMAN YOU HAVE ALWAYS WISHED YOU WERE.

    WE DON’T DISCRIMINATE IF YOU ARE WHITE OR BLACK. SEND AN EMAIL TO:

    francisdanella@gmail.com OR CALL WHATSAPP +2348101571054 THANK YOU.

    Trả lờiXóa