edition of Pacious on the News and I'm very happy that we have on the program tonight one of the most insightful people I know around here Greg Kessich who for many years was the editor of the editorial pages of the of the Portland newspapers and a friend of mine and a guy who knows a lot and I used to read his editorials all the time now he's retired and you've all missed him I know you've missed him you said what's happened to Kessich where is he I actually do know a couple people who said that one of them who's very conservative right-wing guy who Greg made sure got to tell his story occasionally on the editorial page and I'm sure he misses you Greg but anyway here we are election day was yesterday we get the results today most of them and we're here to talk about it not like those pundits do want TV they're boring you know they give you all this and analysis we're gonna just react to things and and talking about it and in discussion mode and I hope those of you who want to discuss we we used to have technology here where you could call in but I didn't like that because I spent my whole time listening to people tell me why I was wrong and you know I want you to hear that you know who wants to hear that exactly so anyway so Greg what do you think what happened here with I I wrote you a note last week produced predicting a top-to-bottom total smashing you know result in favor of the Republicans across the country top-to-bottom what happened and I didn't I didn't say you're wrong it's gonna be a stalemate we're gonna be about where we thought we would be a year ago but that's what happened is that there was an expectation that Republicans were going to there's gonna be a red wave and Republicans were gonna sweep into all the high offices you did say you didn't think Paula Page was gonna win I did not and you and you also said that the Bulldog in what's gonna lose the Senate race in New Hampshire but that was about it and what happened is we have a very rigid system right now we don't have landslides like we once had Lyndon Johnson winning what 64% of the vote in 1964 the biggest landslide of all I think in percentage yeah and then you know Reagan and Nixon both won 49 states right but that doesn't seem even possible now it's hard you couldn't even imagine anybody putting that together so there's fewer seats at play partly because it's structural partly because you know of gerrymandering and things like that so but also because of the way our politics have become so polarized and so rigid that there isn't really room for a big wave election the way we might have seen them in the past and I think that's what happened everybody kind of performed the way you would have expected them to perform if you hadn't been expecting some big transformative change election interesting taking I hadn't thought much about that but that's true it is Yankees in the Red Sox now yeah everybody's armed yeah yeah yeah right they're both winning nine you know nine games a year against each other so so it's close it was essentially a tie although I think for sure the Republicans will elect a speaker and be in control of the house I don't know how much control yeah but I found something interesting today on the Daily Beast the headline that said we still don't know who won but the Republicans lost right and there's a lot of truth to that and I think they think they lost and because I think they thought they were going to have an overwhelming victory but this reminds me this phrase we still don't know who won but the Republicans lost in 1969 a very good Yale football team with a couple guys who was very successful in the pros was playing Harvard in the game and surprisingly in the last four minutes of the game Harvard scored three touchdowns and tied the game and it ended in a tie 29-29 and the next morning in the Harvard Crimson the headline was Harvard wins 29-29 yeah this is what this situation is so so and why do we expect it to be more I think that's a that's worth looking at because Republicans I think over they said expectations very high and so it looks like they lost when when really they just made some incremental gains but it doesn't happen this way often that they in the after the first two years of a new president's presidency the party out of power that you they controls the House the Senate and the White House usually loses a lot isn't that traditional that's true Obama lost something like 60 seats the Democrats lost 60 seats in 2010 yeah when Obama had his first midterm I think in Bill Clinton's first midterm in 94 which is election that a lot of people have been talking about recently as the as the as the model for this year Clinton lost something like 50 seats in the 40s I think so why didn't that so we had that plus a lot of people the gas prices they talk about gas prices as though you know we have total control over yeah get the constant a lot of Republicans I heard not just the people doing the ads but people that I know Republicans what about the gas prices what about inflation we got to make a change in Congress to do something about that that didn't work I thought it would yeah maybe this is a good time to like give voters some credit for understanding that a lot of these things are out of the control of the people in the world certain offices the other one is crime you know there's no question crime is going up even here in Portland I think there was like 40 incidents involving guns in the in a 12 month period which is a lot you know for a city like this and but I don't think Shelly Pingry has anything to do with the crime rate in Portland not anything directly I don't think right I get Jared Golden does you know I think that that people recognize perhaps you know I think we need to talk to more voters and figure out what they were thinking but for some reason those those issues didn't stick in the way that the consultants believe that they would you know here's a this is from the New Yorker a few days ago and it says why Republican insiders think the GOP is poised for a blowout then it says this article the interviewed a lot of people the consensus among pollsters and consultants is this Tuesday's election will be a bloodbath for the Democratic Party so that was I mean that was their narrative their message yes and it was told totally wrong now and I think they flooded the the market with a very partisan polls that affected the the polling averages online that a lot of people like you and me read yeah and that affects the the attitudes of the people writing the stories and and and then it has an effect on the people reading the stories that they're their expectation is that that this is going to be a blowout and maybe they don't go out and vote or maybe they stay home and I don't think that's what happens there's a another very high turnout election I think we've had three in a row so today this morning I called my good friend Lou Dele Sandro who was a state senator in New Hampshire the longest serving state senator I think he's won 18 straight elections in New Hampshire legislature the Democrat and I said Lou what happened and he said one word back to me abortion yeah and then he said you know that what people talked about that a few months ago last summer after row weed row versus Wade was overturned and everybody said it's gonna help the Democrats and their turn out but now if the last couple months people haven't talked about it all it's all been about the economy and so forth and it's the economy stupid well he said let me tell you what I know about running for political office never say you are in favor of taking away something that individuals think is their right and if it's an established right and you say you're gonna take it away you will get their attention and that's what happened here huge numbers of women particularly made sure to vote and vote against Republicans I think you're right yeah I think that's right I talked to a Republican who had worked in campaigns in Maine at the beginning of the summer or maybe in June and I said you know does LePage have a chance and he said I think he did until the Dobbs decision and and this was before the debates and and LePage could never really get a message on abortion that made any sense and he didn't want he ran from it here's an interesting quote yesterday this is a quote from what he said last night yeah he said maybe it was a quote he said before last night if heating oil is not as important as abortion then I'm telling you I should have never gotten into politics right if heating oil is not as important as abortion that was last night yeah that was last night yeah so now I read maybe three months ago not long after road versus Wade was overturned that he said to a reporter I don't want to talk about abortion yeah so I my theory was what's happened with all these Republican candidates their their handlers have told them all across the country all the Republicans just don't talk about it yeah and that's he took the that advice he didn't want to talk about it he knew I would say you he knew it was a hot issue yeah and it was something to stay away from yeah I'm sure they have polling and they and they talked to people I thought one interesting thing about this campaign was how much under the radar it was for me and partly it's I retired in in July so I wasn't in the newsroom every day and living it but also when I was driving around the roads I didn't see so many signs very few people came to my door I didn't get a lot of mail and the impression I got was that the can the campaigns have gotten so sophisticated at identifying their voters and speaking directly to them through channels that aren't obvious to me you know that don't come across my desk that that's the way they're doing it now and I was wondering how they could be spending all this money and I don't have any you know I never had any interaction with LaPage campaign stuff yeah but you didn't watch enough television I did I watched the World Series and I saw a lot of commercials then constant horrible things lies about one of really unbelievable lies in these in these ads they just make up something you know Governor Mills is handing out crack pipes right do addicts yeah you think people believe that some do I guess otherwise they wouldn't be putting in on the ads it's like the way people believe in professional wrestling you know they sort of do but they but you know they on some level they know it's not true but they feel like there's something real there that that they can relate to point yeah good point well let's turn we're gonna go back and talk about some of the national results in a few minutes but let's talk a little bit about that about this election in Maine I thought and I took you asked me and I told you that I thought that make Republicans would take the main legislature yeah they didn't come close no in fact the Democrats might have a bigger margin in the Senate when it's all over then they had one last week and the house is a little smaller but we're gonna have a Democratic Speaker who will be from Portland and Rachel Talbot and we're gonna have the same Senate president who's from a Rooster County who the Republicans spent a million dollars in northern Rooster County one million dollars there's only about 30,000 voters up there and to defeat him and he won he did and he I'm told I know him pretty well that as he was campaigning up there he would see these prominent Republicans from southern Maine up there helping to organize the opposition to him so they haven't endeared themselves that's for sure but but you were ran these editorial pages you've been here in Portland a long time I did a little analysis greater Portland and just immediate suburbs yeah so I looked at the results from Freeport to Scarborough just the towns along the water Freeport Cumberland Freeport Yarmouth Cumberland Falmouth Cape Elizabeth South Portland Scarborough and I threw in Westbrook because it's so close so there's about 65,000 people voted in just those towns we're not talking about Portland 65 that's a lot of votes in the state of Maine yeah and so the results are unbelievable Mills Mills carried South Portland by 78% she got 78% almost 80% of the vote in South Portland almost four out of five people in South Portland voted for Mills just a little over 20% for LePage Cape Elizabeth same thing 78% for Mills 20% in Cape Elizabeth yeah used to be a Republican town Yarmouth 78% for Mills 21% for LePage and so it went through all of these towns you know the only one where LePage got over 30% was Scarborough and he got just 33% Mills got two-thirds of the vote so one huge numbers of votes in these towns then you look at Portland you add that in yeah the core yeah of this strip and Mills got 87% yeah 32,625 people voted in the gubernatorial election in the city of Portland 32,600 yeah she got 87% almost all of them yeah almost all of them yeah that's bigger than some counties in the second district bigger than some counties in the city four or five yeah yeah you can take two or three of those counties and it would be bigger than three of them combined yeah yeah I looked at what LePage got in raw votes in Portland was something like about 2000 and remember back in 2010 during the Republican primary Peter Mills was campaigning a lot in Portland and I ran it to him on the street it's what are you doing here you know it's just the Republicans here and he said oh no there's more Republicans in Portland than any town in the state there's there's there's more Republican votes and every year after that I've looked it up and he's right and and I think LePage in 2014 got something like 8,000 votes in the city of Portland and this time something under 3,000 you know it's exactly you know so he wasn't able to kind of put enough of a foothold down here to avoid you know what it would happen you know you look at these statistics from this election for greater Portland yeah and there are a lot of Republicans around and a lot of moderates yep and you the republics has got to have a plan because unless they have a plan on how to improve their performance in this general area greater Portland they'll never win right they can't win they got to get some votes here Susan Collins did Susan Collins could she won she won York County and she she was even in a lot of these towns and I think she won Scarborough but you wonder what LePage's plan was or the Republican parties plan plan was for this problem in Portland I think that's what the the immigrant welcome center that he opened up on Congress Street was about it wasn't about winning over immigrant votes it was about trying to convince moderates and independents that he was friendly to immigrants and and and try to hold on to some of those suburban votes so but we still have the same general blue red map in Maine immediate coast yeah just the immediate coast all the way up to Washington County before it gets to Washington County it always looks the same it always looks the same yeah goes inland a little bit around here Mills barely carried Wyndham mm-hmm she carried Raymond oh interesting yeah that was interesting by just a few votes she carried Gorham quite significantly had won that pretty easily and then she barely lost Standish but by the time you get to Standish yeah the Democrats are dead right by the time they get to Standish yeah and she won Lewiston and she won Lewiston and Auburn and Auburn break the Republican Senate candidate one but she carried Auburn one other interesting thing and this is we're going to get into demographics here but there all there is a blue spot on this map and it's around Bridgeton and Denmark and the towns on the New Hampshire border around lakes where there's a lot of well off people mm-hmm and you know up not far from North Conway right and that went for Mills yeah and just that blue area over there so you think it has something to do when we talk about demographics with with education and levels you know it was too early to say what the what the breakdowns were in this election in 2020 and and previous there's been this growing split between polarization around college education college educated people are more and more voting Democrat when you talked about Cape Elizabeth and Falmouth being formerly Republican towns back in those days people with college education tended to be Republican correct and and that there's been a real movement over to the Democratic Party and there is a not a simultaneous movement at first it was just white what they call white working class which were people without a college degree who were progressively getting more and more Republican and there was some signs in the last couple of elections cycles I don't know about yesterday but I'm in 2020 and 2018 of of black and Hispanic working class particularly men voting Republican and for some of the same reasons and that's I think the the key battleground going forward there's something like a third of the population has a college degree and in politics you don't want to be fighting over the third you want to be getting a piece of the two-thirds and there's evidence of that fight because you see a lot of these Republican candidates including the page got people fired up about elitists yeah that we're going to fight against the elitists right and and then what always interests me is that these are the same people want to fight against the elitists are the ones who tell you that they're great patriots and they read the Constitution and they and they're very interested in the Constitution and they want to protect the Constitution and the founding fathers were brilliant the founding fathers were a man and I say man to a man they were elitists uh-huh right they were they were clearly the elite early America right but they were veer them uh-huh those elitists like the current elitist but yeah it's yeah yeah and and and so a lot so that same type of thing is the rural urban split too because that's partly education based there yeah it correlates right it correlates yeah yeah there's more college educated people in the suburbs than in rural areas yeah so um what is this you thought about at all what this means for president trump because he said that he expects to announce his uh run for the presidency next Tuesday the 15th you know I haven't to be honest I haven't given it a lot of thought yeah yeah and he hasn't called he hasn't called me to ask for my advice I can't see why he would not run he still has a very uh enthusiastic uh support you know it's really interesting that lapage sometimes refers to himself as trump before trump and uh it's a similar issue right I mean that lapage um has like a very loyal enthusiastic support in Maine and it's about 35 38 percent of the electorate and trump has that same kind of chunk of the republican uh no of the of the national electorate probably um more than half of republicans although I think it's it's it's going down a little bit I think it's still over 60 percent yeah the republicans win poll said love trump he's their guy and um and and then plus he's uh facing some legal troubles and he's found out that uh it's harder to uh indict somebody who's president you know he's got a lot he's got a lot of personal interest well and I think is one other thing this is a guy who um who calls around calling people names and one of his favorite names he accuses people of being losers he's always talking about that guy's a loser well now he's a loser and it's must be eating at him driving him crazy I mean when I say driving him crazy he is a politician that actually does get driven crazy by these things yeah I'm not just uh you know picking that word out of the atmosphere he's being driven crazy by being a loser so he he's going to prove that he's not a loser and that's why he said that the election was stolen because he really didn't lose that's right you can't stand the thought of it yeah even the election he won he said was um was fraud yeah because he didn't get the popular he could he get the popular but you know the thing I've always believed and and observed is that uh the worst thing in the world for a politician is to lose an election and uh everybody shuns them afterwards you know um uh you know Michael Dukakis can walk the streets of Boston and nobody knows who he is right and um uh and I've never seen this before where where people just double down and say that they're more enthusiastic about him have you ever seen that before where somebody loses an election and and they're not blamed for uh seeking a ship he he he's not blamed he's still viewed as by some elements as a heroic guy yeah uh which I was thinking it's funny they do look him in it as a hero and these are people a lot of them are macho people they love the military and so forth this guy's a draft dodger yeah you know he's a draft dodger they still love him and he because he spent his whole life as a carnival barker promoter his whole life everything he's done uh he does understand human nature and he understands the worst parts of human nature understands it very well so when he said I could go out on Fifth Avenue and kill somebody and most of my supporters would not desert me he was telling the truth it's true yeah yeah it's true so so but now so we both think he's he'll run he feel compelled to run yeah he can't walk away yeah so it's become his business right and this is what he does for a living yeah he makes money off yeah yeah makes money off he raises a lot of money so but this he's going to have primary opposition he's not going to go through without a primary because you got this guy down in Florida at least and maybe others who's got to be saying to himself strike why the iron is hot six years from now i may be nothing people will pay no attention to me this is my shot right you're talking about DeSantis yeah and uh when you said earlier we don't know who won but republicans lost i think you could say DeSantis won he has solidified the state of florida as a as a bright red state it's not a swing state anymore it's not a bunch of you know transplanted northerners it's uh it's got a it's got a very specific identity that's connected to this particular kind of right-wing politics that involves you know authoritarian rule right DeSantis was had his hands all over the redistricting process he made sure that that florida got four safe republican seats out of it he you see he's firing elected prosecutors suspending them for not enforcing the laws that he's pushed through the legislature regarding you know what people can teach in school and prosecutors said you know i'm not taking that case you know i i've got enough to do and uh which is usually the way it works right is that they're that they have some discretion and he's found a way a loophole in florida law where he can suspend them and and remove them from office and put his own people in place i mean this is a kind of um um control that we are not used to seeing and and he's got it he's figured it out and a lot of people love it love it i look good he just he just won what it's at 70 30 yeah uh and uh and he's puts in you know he's in a biggest third biggest state uh going into the republican process but you know what he doesn't have uh that trump has is this kind of charisma i like it's hard to imagine him filling a stadium the way trump can but but what's he gonna do when trump has already started yeah with him and uh what he he called him uh uh yeah he said that on on monday night trump attacked de santis right which is never typical the night before an election day it's very typical for the leader of your party to attack a candidate from your own party yeah so that is typical so he began a few weeks ago calling him ron desanctimonious yeah clever yes clever ron desanctimonious uh and then on monday night the before the election he was speaking to reporters on his plane and he threatened to release damaging information uh about de santis should he run quote this is trump quoting on monday night the election eve if he did run run this is a this is a great trumpism uh he did this all the time if he did run i will tell you things about him that won't be very flattering i know more i know more only about him than anybody other than his wife yeah all the people were he knows more about it and and he says uh i think if he runs it's a little warning he could hurt himself very badly right right so it's starting and he uh he can't do it any other way i think in that same quote he had something about how uh his wife is the one who really runs the campaign right yeah yeah yeah yeah so he's going to go at this guy yeah tooth and nail now ron desanctimonious uh he's got a problem because all these guys all these republicans have a problem no matter what they think about trump no matter how they want to go back at them you've got to be careful because the only way you can win is with trump supporters you need the trumpets because he owns the party it is the trumpets party right so if you want to be nominated in the trumpets party you got to be careful what you say about trump don't you think there's some truth to that oh absolutely yeah no and i think that's why he's been kind of uh not directly criticizing Trump and i think hoping that there's a void that he can step into but um you know here we are it's that's uh how many years in almost five almost 10 years in and nobody's really figured out a good way to uh to combat trump like no if you if you sink to his level uh you just make yourself look small and he's better at it um if you if you ignore him uh that's another set of problems yeah it's it's a conundrum for that and i don't know how how uh desanus is gonna how we can possibly handle it he needs the trumpest party uh huh trump owns it he needs it how he's gonna do it and it's and it isn't that trump is going to say something nasty about him every once in a while yeah it's going to be constant give him a name but you know um i i think one of the narratives coming out of last night is that um the really hardcore trumpist didn't do well and that um the some of the really serious election the deniers like um uh for getting general bolduck in in new yam sure um under performed compared to other republicans and i think the word is going to be out um somebody's going to try to make the case that uh he's dragging us down we can have the same policies and we don't need him we don't need his negative um force because he brings people out well that would be the thing to say and there are plenty of republicans that will say those things uh but uh if you're running for president in a republican primary in iran desantis uh how do you say something bad about trump when you need his party he does you said it earlier we talked about over 50 percent i think it's 60 some odd percent of republicans are devoted to him yeah it's his party we i don't think there's ever been a case like i've been around a long time i don't think eisenhower i don't think even reagan had that kind of you know control over his own party i know i know no democrat ever did maybe roosevelt in the beginning but uh isn't there a famous story of roosevelt going on campaigning against uh democrats who didn't who were too conservative and in the first midterm and um and maybe it was maybe it was in 1938 anyway they they they all won and they all went back to washington and uh he had to deal with them and it was uh he learned his lesson that i didn't know the yeah yeah so it was like you know he was he was running against the uh the southern um uh dixie crats who uh he needed but um he wanted to you know they weren't progressive enough so look but uh there's good there's very likely to be this battle between at least de santis and trump if not more yeah and um oh the other thing i want to say about the um you know remember the the last republican primary everybody seemed to be waiting for someone else to to knock trump out right so that they could like step in and that enabled him to go all the way coast to coast and uh that's so that's an issue right like somebody nobody wants to be the one the republicans would love it if the democrats got rid of trump yeah oh yeah no they'd like him to go to jail yeah no question about that yeah they pray for it but but look trump is going to do damage because he's going to go after he's going to call him a rhino you know he's going to call him names and the better that de santis as they get closer to the primaries the better he is in the polls the more fired up trump is going to get and the more vicious the things that are going to be that he says because he's going to panic because he cannot lose he can psychologically he cannot accept it right so he's he's really going to get wound up and people when person said to me well uh he will have to be careful about the republican party i said do you what human being who's been paying attention to the last six years can believe that trump is worried about doing damage to the republican party yeah he only worries about himself right only everybody knows it nobody watching this television show whether there's love trump or not even those that love trump uh would agree he only cares about himself yeah that's obvious to any human being who's got a brain yeah so there's going to be trouble there's going to be trouble there's things there's going to be a dynamic here that's going to be pretty rough i i think the saint disantis is pretty smart guy but i don't know how he's going to figure out this one no or uh what about the um the likely speaker of the house um mccarthy mccarthy is going to have a uh a caucus with uh maybe 50 100 marjorie taylor green is going to be an important part of his carcass right she's got her followers she is and she's already said it they're going to pay attention to me yeah and she's nuts she is so she's not you know if that's the people with mental illness but you know it's Kevin mccarthy is not nuts he wants to be speaker he's not not he's going to have to figure out how to handle her good luck to him because it's going to be difficult she's going to be telling him what to do and he's going to have figure out how to hold her at bay her and a bunch of other crazy people that are going to be in his caucus yeah so i think look Nancy Pelosi has some people not as crazy as marjorie taylor green but she has the very liberals the so-called progressives who put the pressure on her and she's managed them she's managed them they don't run her caucus but she's had to deal with them uh they weren't the ones that uh interfered with her who was it it was the moderates of get jarred golden yeah take teamed up with some you know a guy from new jersey who wants to to get rid of the the limit on state and local tax deduction and they and they delayed a vote on a very important bill really kind of that they were the they were the bomb throwers it wasn't the the progressives yeah who went along with much smaller than they had you know proposed every step of the way so they were so much of a problem they were taking half a loaf all the way well i think uh you know historians are gonna have to look at Nancy Pelosi and say what an incredible job she did holding together a coalition that um was so diverse uh and i don't mean just like racially i mean uh uh ideologically a lot of there's a big moderate group of democrats there is and and uh and then there's a you know a very big group of progressives yeah and um and i don't know if you remember this but back in like uh 2008 i wrote a column about how maybe we don't need parties anymore because look obama was not the choice of of the traditional democrats and and he got nominated and john mccain was not the support of you know the choice of the republican base and they have their own brand that was independent of their parties and and um and you called me up and told me what was wrong with that i did you did you did and you said uh uh you know in parliamentary governments there's all these little parties and they come together uh to form a government and in american politics they come together under democrats and republicans and and uh something that would be a small party in israel is is a wing of the democratic party or the republican party and um and i've noticed uh over the years that you're right and uh that these coalitions are um we call them parties but really they are uh uh the group that puts us in position to govern you know what depending on your perspective republican or democrat and the republican party has been in i don't know the last 40 years or so very more ideologically consistent uh inside the party and the democrats have been um more complicated and you have you have everything from like true conservatives to socialists uh under the same and and they don't agree on every issue and they there's only a few issues that they all agree on you know i think that that's that's a good point i remember when i was very active in politics in uh in 1972 i was helping musky i was traveling around the country who was running for president and george mcgovern beat him and george mcgovern's campaign rested on young very liberal people posed to the war and uh they took over the party mcgovern because he was in the left wing he was a good guy but his supporters were in the real left wing of the perceived to be in the left wing of the democratic party because there were a lot of democratic moderates yeah he got nominated and he carried massachusetts and the district of columbia got slaughtered and and running in 1972 against a guy who was already defending himself against the water break the watergate break in a crook a crook i can say that he was he was a crook nixon was successful in many ways as president he was a knowledgeable president he he knew how to go about it but he was a crook and george mcgovern running against him carried just the district of columbia why because he was on a fringe he himself wasn't but his supporters were so that's a good lesson for everyone yeah and it's but actually i don't think it's gonna hurt the republicans they have these fringe although they a lot of their fringe candidates didn't make it this time did they they no no they made it through the primaries which would democratic help sometimes i know i know this is the i'm sorry to see that strategy working because it did work it did work they said we're gonna help sure we're gonna help these republicans nominate real wackos yeah and that'll help us and it did and they did nominate some wackos and some democrats were able to win because they were running against a wacko yeah yeah um well maybe but uh but you know it was where was it okay i'm blanking on the name but there was one of the um the candidates who um a house candidate who had voted for impeachment and was in a tough primary and the democrats backed his opponent who was an election denier um because they felt strategic this was in michigan and the guy's name was may or m e j e r or something like that yeah which um you know when you talk about how how are we ever gonna like get out of this this tight polarization um where you know people just go vote their party on every issue um that's not gonna help but the democrats took that seat they did the democrats got that seat because they were running against a wacko yep yep and the democrats helped get that wacko yeah yeah they said no i don't i agree with you i don't i don't uh uh approve of that remember the republicans did that here in um 2012 when angus king was running uh they ran ads for um uh synthia dill yeah and they said uh she's the real progressive in the race and they had the comparison ads between her and angus king that made him look more conservative they did that huh yeah i didn't know that yeah oh that's interesting didn't work but it didn't work no i but i i i'm a i'm not a journalist so i can say this okay uh i'm a big fan of angus king because i spent many years in washington and i grew up a lot there and in the years i was there and have great respect for for politicians who are thoughtful and intelligent and moderate in their views and angus king is all of those things and so i'm a great admirer i'm proud when people people say oh your your senator is angus king i'm proud because he he he he is the what i reviewed as the norm as a guy who belongs in the senate and not not the fellow the football player from georgia that isn't what i would call the norm uh so do you think he'll run again angus i do i'm hoping he will uh i i think i think it's important for the senate frankly because he's able to talk he has a lot of republican senators who are friends of his social friends he makes a point of keeping an apartment there and not you know sleeping in his office always right right right just so he can socialize with a a lot of them so no i think he's a very important part of uh of the senate i think mitch mcconnell is too actually i don't agree with mitch mcconnell on most anything and i think it's terrible what he did with about the supreme court justice and not letting him have a hearing and so forth i think that's just awful and you go down in history with a black mark for that on the other hand he is the type of senator in terms of wanting to protect the reputation of the senate that is you know he's not like angus king but he's normal you don't think so i can tell well i think he's done a lot of damage and um i guess i would say that the stuff with the judges not just the um maryk garland you know stiff arming obama on on maryk garland but also changing the filibuster rule for gore for gorsuch yeah um and pretty much guaranteeing forever that they were never going to be a bipartisan supreme court justice again because uh you can only get a justice confirmed under under the new rules uh if the president and the senator in control of the same party and you only need 50 votes so um i don't think we're ever going to see a consensus supreme court justice uh it's just going to be one partisan after another because of the short-term political gain that mcconnell got from um from leaving that nomination open during the election which i think really helped trump and then coming back the next spring with a very um partisan judge um that would never have gotten 60 votes uh didn't even try to find a one that would um and and that sets the pattern going forward where you know i don't know what changes that so i i think that's a that's going to be a a lot of damage also he's been one of them the main advocates for uh more money in politics like most people i talk to think there's too much money in politics not mitch mcconnell he wants more money he he has fought every campaign i think all republicans want more money in politics at least they most of them say you know they don't like it when the money it's spent against them well after citizens united there was a bill in the senate yeah to regulate it and to provide for full disclosure in all of that but we had two senators who voted against that bill and they said for procedural reasons they always say those things but they both voted against it i think it's a republican deal sure and well we don't know about mitch mcconnell is what is the behind the doors conversation he's very careful of his caucus like he doesn't want to make anybody take a bad vote right um so he doesn't do things where um he would let uh like a group of republicans vote with the democrats um and i assume the democrats are the same way that they don't want to expose any of their members to a vote that would hurt them so they end up not voting on a lot of things he has a donald trump problem too oh yeah good he deserves it yeah they both they deserve each other he brought he you know he helped donald trump uh put it be in a position to uh to torture him yeah well that's that's true oh yeah no the hypocrisy and i'm going to say this is this is uh you know people mean they say well he's a democrat because he says that he's partisan i'm not i'm a democrat but i'm not partisan a lot of democrats would disapprove of some of the things i say but uh i i'll tell you the hypocrisy um because of trumpism because of the the unbelievable control this this sickness called trumpism has in the republican party they're hypocrites they're hypocrites they say one they say if they're running against them they tell the truth but otherwise they lie for him yeah and i i think that's terrible you know the founding fathers you do know this i do i know you know this but the founding fathers in particularly madison who was the architect of the constitution felt it could only work well if you had a succession of virtuous leaders there is no virtue among these these hypocrites in washington no virtue it's dangerous so anyway thank you for coming on the show and let me make a little speech very good yeah it's a good one yeah so so what about um what about our second district uh race yeah the republican running again i i thought dude which is why the republicans let this guy run here he is running in this we talked about the demographics an area with education with some resentment with some anti-elitism here's a guy and over harvard and wall street rich wall street harvard grad running in that district you wouldn't if you were inventing a candidate to run there he'd be the last one you'd get i think so and and he also you know he big-footed um uh trey steward uh young state senator out of that race uh you know they there was a before polo was that the guy from fresco yeah you know young um uh second district legislator was announced he was going to run against golden and um and then there were some conversations and um and he said he was not going to run against golden you know i think they gave him the kid it's not your night uh speech right and uh and so he got out and uh i think that would have been a um a tougher race and um um i was watching uh the the commercials during the world series and i noticed that polo queen doesn't appear in any of his ads it's all these very harried people you know like oh everything's scary everything i liked it better before life has gone too complicated and uh and then at the end i proved this message and um and uh golden's ads uh i thought he was running as joe biden he doesn't mention polo queen he doesn't mention the republicans he just talks about i stood up to biden i i was the only one who voted against the uh the big uh a covid relief bill yeah um so you know i guess that's that's you you have to say what you want to get elected but um well i think the number that really jumps out of me in that race is that uh tiffani bond uh got a seven percent of the vote something like 20 000 votes yeah could that be right is that i don't know i might be off the math there but but she got she got seven percent yeah and it was solid seven percent all night long yeah because uh she'd have to because uh golden got 48 percent of the vote and um and he got 44 got 44 yeah so that figures and uh that's got to be a protest vote of some kind against uh you know against golden i would think because uh or people that can't can't well she's a democrat no she used to be a democrat and now she's an independent but she um people would say i can't as far as i know the only campaign of hers that i ever was able to get a grip on was that uh she was complaining about not getting covered in the media um and not being invited to the debates and and things like that but she still got a substantial point of the amount of the vote and she denied golden a election night victory and i think he's going to win the runoff um but uh you know i think that's he should definitely see that as a as a message that uh especially if he's thinking about running statewide someday all right then we'll ask you creature we're going to run out of time the democratic socialists were good at organizing getting the stuffs on the ballot but the people spoke they did and we were talking about this earlier they kind of spoke in a in a pretty articulate way they they they didn't just say no on everything or yes on everything um people seem to go through the ballot which is very complicated in Portland there was something like a to e on the charter and and and one to five on on the questions and and voted for some and voted against others and and the margin of victory is very similar it was about 60 40 people thought it through people thought it through and came to the same conclusions make you feel good about me feel like people because i saw that ballot i said nobody's gonna read that it's three pages long but the voters in portland the voters in portland read it and they didn't did i didn't agree on on all the outcomes but um i i don't have any doubt that people read that and took those those questions seriously you know uh democratic socialists is an interesting um thing you were talking about earlier about about you know feeling like they're they're in a fringe or a wing of a party and um uh if you talk to them they they feel like everybody really agrees with them and um uh they just as a matter of getting their message out and um i think it's uh i think great wing republicans think the same thing exactly yeah yeah and i personally think the same thing i think everybody agrees with me and except for some a few cranks but anyway you know so it's a point of like how do you build a coalition to get progress on some of these um on these plans and and they had success in the past of getting around the legislative process and putting these things on the ballot and and and then forcing the the council to city council to implement them and now i think they really need to find a way to work within the council system so what is it so so so what does it say that people didn't what is this telling us that people really don't see a big problem with the governing structure of portland yeah i think so i think that's what what it says the the um the way the charter commission came about my recollection is that the the clean elections people wanted to have a local clean elections referendum yeah and the city told them you can't do that it has to be done through the charter so they went through the trouble of putting the petitions out to get a charter review commission and then we had covid and the george floyd protests and and a lot of um street activism that latched on to the charter commission as a vehicle for a lot of big change and i don't think that's what drove this was a need for for big change and i would just one last thing before we go and in cape Elizabeth where i live they voted down a proposal for a hundred and fifteen million dollar school project too much money and they didn't like the way they went about it and the proponents would say i voted against it would say about me i don't like education i'm anti-education right and that's the absurdity of american politics thank you very much


Thanks, y'all. Can everyone hear me okay? Awesome. Good morning, Texas. Let's talk about software testing, shall we? Whoo! So my name is Andy Knight. I am known as the Automation Panda. I love software testing, automation, behavior-driven development, and Python. You can follow me on Twitter and my blog at Automation Panda. I'd like to thank my company for sending me here today. I work at Precision Lender. I've been there for just a year as of this week. Precision Lender does applied banking insights, and a couple of us will be at PyCon this coming May. So thank you, Precision Lender. Here's a question for everybody.  Everybody, please put your hands up. Okay, thank you. Great. We all have experienced software bugs. Do we like software bugs? No, they're bad. That's why they're bugs. That's why we want to squish them. So here's another question. Raise your hand if you always test your code. Wow. Yeah, that's about what I expect. I've given this talk a couple of times, and that's usually what happens.  It's not bad. There's reasons. It's okay. But I want us to stop and pause for a moment and think, time out. Why is there just this discrepancy? We know we have all these software bugs, but we're not always testing our code. Well, why is that? And furthermore, why don't we automate the tests so that the code gets tested automatically so we can spend more time making the code to begin with? This is not an easy question to answer because there are some tough points we have to face. First of all, especially with test automation, we know deep down this is something we should do. For small projects, it's not such a big deal. But for big projects, things that scale, things that have huge teams working on them, we have to move fast, we have to move continuously, and there's lots of moving parts. There's lots of danger areas that things could just break and all those bugs just rush in like cockroaches. We know that we also don't have enough time in the day or even in the universe to test everything manually. We can't repeat the full testing of these giant systems over and over again ourselves. There's just not enough time for that. We need some solution to do things automatically. And that's where test automation is supposed to help us. Unfortunately, though, we also know that test automation is hard, and that's one of the barriers of entry of why I think so many people didn't quite raise their hand when I asked, do you always test your code? Test automation is not an easy thing. I do this day to day. I know firsthand it's not easy. I fight the problems in the test automation every day. It requires strong developer skills. It has its own technologies. It has its own software stack. Just because you're a good developer doesn't mean you're necessarily going to be a good test automation engineer because there are certain aspects to that domain that are tricky. And I could spend all day talking about that. But ultimately what I want you to recognize is that test automation is not just about writing test scripts. Test automation itself is software and deserves the same practices and tools and attention that we give the product code, so to speak. And with that in mind, I've also, from talking with a lot of people in different companies and teams, I found that test automation can be intimidating for a lot of folks. Many teams really don't know how to start. They know they need it. They know they have bugs, but they don't know how to approach the test automation challenge, so to speak. And so I see two things happening. Either teams will keep punting the football down the core and just keep avoiding test automation altogether, and they'll either skip test coverage or they'll hire teams just to do manual testing, and that's not a really good situation because that's unscalable. Or a lot of times what happens is they'll try.  That's not good. Both of those situations are not having anything or having stuff that is detracting from your value very bad. And we hit this moment where we are, ah, eekad! What do we do with this? Because we know we need this, but we're not doing it well. And that's what I'm here to talk about today. And in fact, I've got a little story to go along with how we can approach the test automation challenge. And I want you to meet a friend of mine. Let's meet someone who can help. I'd like you to meet my friend, Amanda the Panda. Amanda is a software engineer who loves using Python. Amanda works at a company called Bamboozle. Yup, Bamboozle is a small but growing tech company. Bamboozle provides an online platform for Panda commerce. As a full stack developer, Amanda has a good understanding of Bamboozle's web front end, REST API service layer and infrastructure needs. Recently, Bamboozle had a couple severe bugs escaped to production. Oops, eekad! Management decided it was finally time to start automating tests and Amanda volunteered to lead the effort. Since this is the first time she's done test automation, Amanda does her homework. She starts learning about different testing types, tools and frameworks. However, her web research feels more like a game of buzzword bingo because there are so many buzzwords when it comes to testing and automation. And everyone seems to give different definitions to the same words. Anyone have that problem before? True story. So, like, what are the differences between unit integration and to end testing? What are all the packages I need? What's this cucumber thing? The Selenium web driver thing? Do they work together? They separate frameworks. I don't know. We need help. So, Amanda calls her friend Andy. That's me. Software engineer and test. There's so much info out there, Amanda says, that I can't discern what is the right approach to take. We want to do things right. How do we do it right? Let me ask you a question, Andy says. What is your main goal with testing? What is your main goal? Well, Amanda replies, I guess I want to make sure that the critical parts of the bamboozles app are working correctly. Anytime someone introduces a bug, tests should catch it immediately. Great. It sounds like you need a functional test automation solution. Functional tests make sure that the features work correctly. As you said, functional tests serve two main purposes, validating goodness and identifying badness. I'd like to share with you the test automation pyramid. Has anybody seen this before? Some people? Okay, cool. Let's talk about this. The pyramid is a rough guideline for how an automation solution should be structured. All layers are functional tests from unit to integration to end to end. At the bottom, we have unit tests, which cover individual units of code, like functions, methods, and classes. Unit tests are white box, in that they interact with the product code directly. They're making calls to your functions and classes. Above that are what we call feature tests, which cover black box behaviors of real live instances of the product under test. So you don't directly access the code, you access whatever the deployed version of that product is. Integration tests cover components where things meet, usually like a one-two hop, maybe a service API. And to end tests cover paths through the entire system, typically like a user would exercise through the web UI. Each layer of the pyramid mitigates risk at its optimal return on investment. That's why we have the layers. We want a strong foundation of unit tests because they are small, quick, easy to maintain, and will catch things very quickly. Integration and especially end-to-end tests are far more costly to build and maintain. And they also take more time to run. I want you all to consider the rule of ones. A unit test would take about one millisecond to run. An integration test usually would take about one second to run. And an end-to-end test order of magnitude will take about one minute to run. So there's this issue of scale as we go up the pyramid. Hold on, Andy. Amanda interjects. Why do we even need feature tests? They sound like such a burden when compared to unit tests. I also read that web tests can really be flaky with Selenium WebDriver. Andy replies. Well, hold on now. Unit tests don't catch all problems. Here's an example. Back in 1999, NASA lost the Mars climate orbiter when it disintegrated into the Martian atmosphere. Why? Ground-based software did not convert measurements into the metric system. This is a real story. The calculation modules worked individually, but they did not integrate properly. Had NASA checked software with proper integration tests, they would not have lost $655 million. Wow! Amanda explains. I wouldn't want that to happen to my company. It sounds like I need to take a pyramid approach. So, what skills do I need to get started? Andy smiles. Good news. You already have the skills. Test automation is software. And the same development principles apply. Just pick a core framework and get rolling. You may also want to take some online courses about frameworks and test packages that you'll need. Check out Test Automation University, which offers a bunch of courses and experts for free. So, there's another question Amanda asks. What test framework should we use? Bamboozle does a lot of Python on the back end. So, I looked at frameworks like unit tests, PyTest, and Behave. Python is one of the best languages for test automation, Andy replies. And you can't go wrong with PyTest. PyTest can handle tests at all layers of the pyramid. Markers can categorize tests, as functions and fixtures are lightweight. And plugins can be added for reports, code coverage, and even parallel execution. Among all Python test frameworks, PyTest is also arguably the most pythonic. So, that could be up to debate. Now, a test automation solution is more than a core framework though. So, be cautioned. Successful automation projects bring together readily available packages, rather than developing everything from scratch. For example, you may want to use Python's standard logging library for logging messages. Requests would be great for testing REST APIs. Selenium WebDriver and Splinter would be great for automating WebUI interactions. And there are also tons of PyTest plugins for different frameworks like Flask or Django. So, be sure to look before you leave to see what packages will be useful for you. I can also recommend a few books to get you started. Python Testing with PyTest, by Brian Aachen, is an excellent resource on the PyTest framework. Also, by Bruno Oliveira, is PyTest Quick Start Guide, which is another take on how to get started with PyTest. And for general automation concerns in Python, Handsome Enterprise Automation with Python by Bassam Alley is another great resource. So, check these books out if you want to learn more. Create a device, Andy, Amanda says. This will help me get started. So, Amanda goes back to Bamboozle and starts writing tests in Python using PyTest. She found it was fairly easy to get started, even though she's new with test automation. Taking a pyramid approach, she starts by beefing up the existing unit tests. And then she moves on to using requests for REST API testing and Selenium WebDriver for WebUI testing. She puts code in the same repository as the product code so that they can be version controlled together. However, after writing a number of tests, Amanda discovers some frustrations. She meets up with Andy for bubble tea to pick his mind. Andy, she says, how do I avoid duplicating so much test code? So many of these test steps are the same. It's very repetitive. I just need to make minor tweaks here and there. Code duplication is code cancer, Andy replies. Have you heard about property testing with hypothesis? It could help you with your unit testing. Hypothesis automatically runs tests against a wide range of scenarios so you don't need to hard code variations. Also, to avoid duplication with feature level tests, try using Gherkin with the PyTest BDD plugin. You can write test scenarios in plain language using given-when-then scenarios. And those will be glued to Python functions that will execute like a test script. Steps can be reused by different scenarios. And writing in Gherkin first helps you mentally separate test cases from test code. So you can focus on writing good tests. I'll definitely check out hypothesis in PyTest BDD, Amanda says. I think there were talks about them at PyCon 2018. Now, here's another question. How have you handled test data in the past? My unit tests used PyTest's monkey patch fixture to mock data. But I'm struggling to find good ways to manage data for bamboozle systems, for black box testing. Test data is definitely hard to maintain. Try to keep test data to a minimum. For most tests, data needs are actually pretty small. Tests should set up and clean up whenever they need, such as database records or custom settings. Some data, however, like user accounts, are expensive to repair and should be handled outside of the tests and treated as a writing state. It may also be good to periodically set up and regenerate that data to make sure your systems are clean after any unexpected damage could happen. That makes sense, Amanda says. I've also been storing inputs like URLs and usernames and local config files so that they aren't hard-coded into the test code. Awesome, Andy says. That's great. You may also want to consider using some sort of key management service like AWS KMS or Azure Key Vault. That way your passwords will be secure and your config files will not go stale. Amanda goes back to bamboozle again and she uses what she learned to improve her test automation project. It becomes her full-time work and she transitions unit test work to other developers so she can focus exclusively on the future tests. She does so well that her team keeps asking for more and more tests. Despite training other developers to help write tests, she becomes buried by the backlog. Amanda takes a step back and asks herself, what tests should we automate? Her answer is simple. Automation is expensive, so focus on the highest return on investment. Amanda writes guidelines for her team to avoid getting crushed by an impractical 100% test automation goal. She recommends automating happy paths for core features that will be run repeatedly. She also recommends avoiding edge cases, one-off checks, and visuals because those would be much easier for an expert to log in and try manually. Amanda also recognizes that these are simply guidelines for her team and her project at bamboozle and they may not necessarily apply universally to all other circumstances. However, even after narrowing the scope of the test made, the number of tests is still quite large. Amanda's team has hundreds of feature tests that will balloon to thousands in the upcoming year. The service level tests now take about ten minutes to run and web tests take over an hour. It's no longer practical for developers to run the test on their local machine. So Amanda calls a meeting with her friend, Otto the Panda, another developer at bamboozle and she asks, how can we reduce the burden of automating tests, or how can we reduce the burden that automating tests puts on our development team? How can we reduce this burden? Otto says, it would be really nice if we could run these tests as part of a continuous integration and delivery pipeline. Then, every code change I make as a developer would become automatically tested once it gets pushed. The only problem we still have then would be that the tests take a long time to run. What if we run the tests in parallel using PyTest ExTest, Amanda asks? It could plug directly into our existing framework. And parallel testing, even though it would be hard on our laptops, would be much easier to scale in a CI environment with shared compute resources. I can make sure that the test code is thread safe and would have no collisions such as web logins. And thankfully, PyTest fixtures can help us set up and tear down everything cleanly and safely. If necessary, we could even set up Selenium Grid to scale our test automation execution across multiple nodes with multiple platforms and multiple browser versions. Or we could also look into platform as a service providers, such as Sauce Labs or Browser Stack. Otto replies, that would be awesome. We also need to make sure feature owners are automatically notified of test failures. That way, they can triage any failures immediately, and we get that fast feedback cycle. Amanda and Otto team up to make it happen. Amanda updates the automation code to use PyTest ExTest and Otto adds new jobs to their existing Jenkins build server for running test suites. They also set up a report portal instance to their test results on the dashboard. Tests now complete and a fraction of the time and developers get failure notifications immediately. Unfortunately though, adopting true CI brings unforeseen consequences of scale. More test runs means more issues are uncovered. While most test runs are fine, some start failing intermittently. Ouch! And that is one of the classic problems of test automation. There are four common reasons we see this. It could be that the feature under test has a really tricky bug. It could be the feature under test was... the feature itself was updated without also updating the test code. It could be the automation didn't handle an unexpected condition, such as a timeout. Or, EGAD the worst, the automation itself has a bug. None of these though are good outcomes. Unfortunately as well, the failures leave a bad impression on the team. Some of Amanda's coworkers stopped triaging test failures and they even suggest skipping the tests all together. Amanda doubles down. How can we make tests more reliable? She asks herself. First, she realizes that continuous integration is the production environment for tests and should be treated as such. And I'm going to repeat that again. CI is production for test automation. Test code should undergo the same best practices as product code. Including coding standards and review. Share test framework components should also have unit tests because they're shared by multiple things. Secondly, Amanda discovers that the most common points of failure are remote calls and race conditions. She tunes the framework to have appropriate timeouts, immediate retries, and helpful failure messages when problems arise. She makes it correct what it can and safely abort when it cannot. She also looks into something called contract testing which uses mocks for services to avoid intermittent network problems. Third, Amanda reaches out to her team members for better collaboration because it starts with the team. They institute better processes for flagging feature changes that will affect tests and also for being gracious when failures happen on both sides. As a result of these three improvements, automation becomes more reliable and confidence in the whole test solution has been restored. By this point in our story, the automation solution is quite mature. New tests are added every sprint and results provide fast feedback to the development team. Other developers like Otto join Amanda in automating tests at all layers of the pyramid as part of their natural development workflow. Quality becomes centric to the team's vision. And that is Amanda's test automation journey. There's so much more I could say about all of this. A half hour slot is just not enough time. But I do want to share some resources. If this talk was meaningful to you and you want to go learn some more, this is the slide to take the pictures of. Just disclaimer, boom. If you want to learn more, I have my blog at Automation Panda. Yes, I'm biased towards that one because it's mine. I also recommend checking out Test Automation University as well as the Ministry of Testing. The three books and their authors are listed here as well. Those are the ones I mentioned earlier in the slides. And at the bottom I've also listed all the different frameworks and packages and such that I recommended as part of Amanda's journey. So you can learn more about those. And so yeah, thank you so much for inviting me here to Texas. This is my second time in Austin. If you have any other questions or want to talk more, please come see me whenever I'll be here both days. You can reach out to me on Twitter at Automation Panda. You can contact me through my blog. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.


Going on everyone say I'm here with late in sports cards We are ripping three boxes of the sports card all Mac multi-sport personal box edition volume 5 for William How we've got box number 90 box number 80 and box number 16 so start with 16 good luck here William Oh nice 1975 tops George Brett PSA for that's sick man What year is that 1974 Jesus or 1975 1975 to PSA for That's awesome. Congrats on that William. Great card to start you off PSA for at George Brett very early year George Brett as well.  Great Box number 16 box number 80. We'll do next box number 80 I'm gonna be oh 2012 FLIR FLIR retro Um, Kim Elijah one that is like a reprint of the 97 98 precious metal gems The PMG that's sick man. That's gonna be a PSA seven Pretty 12 FLIR retro. There's 12 13 again like a reprint of the 97 98 PMG that's so sick That's so sick.  It's like a patterning on this is insane So so cool, man. Congrats on that one there William, and we've got box number 90 as well. He has me a bgs grade 2002 2003 upper deck sp game used all-star apparel kobe bryant Game used kobe jersey. Yep. That was a game used kobe jersey bgs nine So I have 0.5 away from a 9 5 I believe too. So that's a really good grade for an 0 3 like thicker card too That's awesome dude really really really nice one there nice mid mixture of vintage Um a little bit more modern-ish I would say with the 0 3 sp And game used kobe jersey that that's cool man. That's cool That was box number 90 that'll do it for your break there. William. Thanks again for the sport buddy getting right out to my


Welcome to world's best videos, we've compiled a list of facts about social media sensation Tessa Brooks. Let's get into it. Tessa Brooke Haberschmitt was born on April 5th, 1999 in Fresno, California. She is currently 18 years old and resides in West Hollywood, California. According to multiple sources, she stands at 5 feet 7 inches. She has two sisters, one of whom dance as part of mommy and me dance classes. She also has a step sister. She took her first dance class at two years old. She learned that dance allowed her to express herself freely. She trained in jazz, ballet, hip-hop, breakdancing, and contemporary dance. She also took gymnastics and eventually became a cheerleader. Her skills were soon spotted, so she signed on productions such as Disney's Next Big Thing. She has come a long way to becoming both an established dancer and actress in Hollywood scene. She has landed a variety of national commercials, including Equestria Girls, Just Dance Forward, Skechers, and Coca-Cola. She was also featured dancer in the YouTube movie Dance Camp, as well as in music videos for artists T-Pain, X Factor's Diamond White, and Disney's Coco Jones. She has been featured as a dancer with a pulse on tour, was performed as a dancer at events such as Miss California Pageant, The Haiti Benefit Concert, and Disney's Next Big Thing. She became a member of the Amobie's Dance Crew. She danced at the Carnation Theater as part of a Michael Jackson tribute. She was asked in a Q&A who she would like to dance for the most, and she responded with Drake, because his concerts looked so lit. When asked who was her celebrity crush, she was applied with, I don't know, but I think Cole Sprouse is cute and artistic. Her goal in life is to inspire people, make a difference, and help people. Her favorite show is The Office. When asked if she would date a fan, she said, if we connect. Well that concludes the video guys, hopefully you guys did enjoy it, and if you did remember to smack that like button, let us know in the comments section below what you'd like to see next, and if you haven't already subscribed, please do subscribe to keep up the world's best videos.


It was from 1994, and it was one of the very first drafts of a new strategic plan. And do you know what the headline was? So I'll do a 2010, I believe, is that right? No, it was Erie towards 2050. And yes, it was rejected in the committee, it was rejected by the board because the horizon was by far too long. But you know, nobody knows if Erie would exist in 2050 anymore, and 1994, I raised that question already. And the last chapter of that strategic document had a headline, which the board immediately has thrown out of the window. And it reads, Beyond Erie's Lifetime. Now I will read you now just the five points, which I thought at that time would be still valid for Erie in 2050. To house the base collection of the world's rice germplasm and to perform the many evaluation research preservation and service functions that this responsibility entails. Second, to collect, evaluate, select, and make accessible information on current rice research and development programs, rice and rice related research results, and global rice research resources, human, financial, and physical. To retain a response capability that can catalyze the use of those resources, e.g. through specifically recruited internationally teams working on topics of supranational importance. And to organize and convene conferences, task forces, seminars, and meetings to facilitate the exchange of information and to focus the application of knowledge on the resolution of emerging problems. And finally, to define research needs that can be taken care of by existing research centers worldwide, promote funding, and harmonize the implementation. So I hope that in 2050 Erie has more function than this one, but these functions definitely will remain as a task of an international institution which is responsible for promoting rice research worldwide. And then if it comes to research itself, yes, I think they are, as we called them first before we had these new frontier projects, we called them men on the moon projects. If you see the world today and the confrontation of problems ahead, there's a whole bunch of it we have not thought of. The globalization and the information systems developing has changed the world so dramatically, not only if it comes to the flow of capital and the flow of information of knowledge but also of manpower. Think of the 7 million Filipinos who have to work abroad because unfortunately within the country they are not the possibility for them to earn the money they need in order to put their families. One of the most tragic cases as I see them for this country. But we definitely will have to deal with a research agenda in agriculture which is very, very different from the one today. The ignorance on the political level if it comes to agriculture worldwide is obvious. But it's also obvious that only the last oil price developments have proven that we need other resources. Now the two Fs will compete with each other. Can we feed the world if we want to fuel the cars as well with biofuel on the same land with the same resources of water, of fertilizer, of agrochemicals, of sea? The answer is definitely no. We cannot do it. We are struggling already now with hunger, even hunger in the Philippines, not to speak about hunger in India and in Africa. And after all these efforts we were not capable to overcome it. Now we have wonderful organizations which are capable of formulating wonderful tasks. The latest example are the Millennium Goals. I confess that I have never believed in them. And when they were formulated in the year 2000 it must have been clear for everybody that in 15 years you cannot get rid of these 800 million people with empty bellies, with the kind of research, with the kind of development, with the kind of political decisions taken. So it is not wishful thinking, it is wishful