Howdy mozz fans. I'm Dominic. I am the founder of Plipped Out and I'm here to talk to you about measuring your brand. If you have a product controlling the consumer experience of that brand is very very important. How do they see it? How do they interact with it? And as SEOs the bit of that brand experience that we control the most are the SERPs. But traditional ways of measuring that often fall short and we're going to talk to an example of how they fall short and how we can do better. So I'm going to use the example up here of cyberpunk.net. There was a video game that came out a little while ago called Cyberpunk 2077 and I'm just picking this as a example of a product that had some real brand reputation problems. It did not have a good launch. So if you were in SEO working for them, how might if you've gone about controlling and measuring how well you were controlling that brand experience? Over here we've got our SERP and our SERP is you know, we've got some fairly standard blue link results where we've got a title and meta description. We've got some other richer elements, things like a video block down here and people also ask blocks. We've got a knowledge block over to the site and if we're looking at this in a ranked record, we'd go Okay, so for cyberpunk.net the primary domain that we control, here's our rank and over time we've moved from five to four. Fantastic. Outside of brand, this is not a terrible way to do it. This is of course for a single keyword because we can see that sort of fluctuations there. If we have multiple keywords, we'll have an aggregate so that it will become an average. It's probably going to look a bit smoother and maybe we've got something like bucketed ranks sitting behind it. So the number of keywords that rank in position one, number of keywords ranked in position two and we've got that to give us a bit of a richness over time. But fundamentally, this is still a very simple picture for a branded SERP because firstly, what we need to think about is how people have looked at SERPs has changed a bit over time. As SERPs have gotten richer, people like Nielsen have seen how we no longer just read straight down. We now ping pong around a bit more. We're willing to interact with more of the SERP. And on a branded SERP, this assumption here, right, Google has domain crowding. So ideally they're trying not to show too many of each domain on each particular SERP. But on a branded SERP, your goal is not to rank with one URL. Your goal is to rank with many URLs and you have the ability to rank with many URLs unlike normal. For a branded term, like for this example, it could be Cyberpunk 2077. It could be something slightly more loaded, like is Cyberpunk good? It could be something slightly less loaded, like is Cyberpunk out? All of these are branded terms where the publisher has a really good chance of appearing from multiple places. And so the green one right at position four or five is our Cyberpunk.net. But actually, we also own position three. That's our publisher domain, right? The people who published the game. So we've got the game website and the publisher thing. We also might want to count this as a win for us. We've got a journalist who's a really good, basically champion for our brand. They really liked the game and they've won a really positive article. That's down here. There's one up here in red. This is a negative article. This is someone who's not having such a good time with it. And we might have a Twitter account and any other number of things, the YouTube accounts, all of these other bits that we could be getting onto our brand SERP. And if we're just measuring by a rank, we're only ever going to get one single number to sum up all of this richness. It's just not good enough for a brand. So how can we do better? How do we take this? So firstly, what we need is a rich SERP data model. You can get this from anywhere. In practice, what we do is we use a service called Data Fresio, which is an API that gives a very rich SERP data model. Would highly recommend. But there are plenty of services that offer this and really doesn't matter which one you pick. What's important is that you have a rich enough SERP data model to get all the ins and outs of each of these little SERP features. So I don't just have the people also ask box as a single block. I have each individual question in the people also ask box with the title of the URL that ranks in the URL that is below that. Same thing for the video. I need a rich enough SERP data source that for the video element, I don't just have the URL. I also get the source for a video block. Google has a little source here. And that's actually the name of the account. When you go and get all that rich data, you can then define what is yours or what you want to be yours, right? We don't technically own this positive article, but we might count it as ours. So you can go and build up this definition of like all of the different things that you think are valuable. You then take this SERP data model and you say, okay, you calculate the size for each of these things. So how much is this size in pixels? This is about this is an ordinary SERP block. So it's probably about 180 pixels tall. So you calculate the height of all of these different elements that you own and you can turn that and you could do area as well, but height for a more basic version. And you could turn that into this, the percentage of owned SERP measured by pixels. What percentage of this SERP do you own? And again, our definition of ownership is whatever we want it to be. And this is enabled by having a very rich SERP data source. Now, we are getting a little bit of something here, which is that with rank, we obviously know five is better than four. We lose a little bit of that context when we come with something like this, which is that obviously ranking down here is not as good as ranking up here. But when we're measuring size and all of these different elements, again, we can't literally have all of them there. So we have to have some sort of compromise for how do we measure importance without going just back to rank. And I think an excellent compromise is to measure above the fold and first page. So the percentage of owned SERP, the percentage of the pixels of the SERP that you own above the fold on desktop and mobile and above the first page by desktop and by mobile. So the idea is that you have a graph that looks something like this where we can say, okay, for our site, for a cyberpunk, for the set of keywords that we're looking at, we own a growing percentage of the mobile pixels above the fold. Great, we're controlling our brand experience. And that gives us essentially a good idea of how what we're doing is SEOs is controlling that branded SERP. Then when you're doing brand projects and you're trying to enrich and fill in this domain, you're getting your results. You're correctly measuring your results rather than having a very simplified picture where you can't do this. Technically, like I said, this practice looks like finding rich SERP data source. In our case, it's piped out. We take data for SEO and we pump it into BigQuery. But again, it could be anything. Lots of great SERP API data sources do this. STAT might also do this. Don't know. Go ask STAT because it's a Moz product and this is a Moz block. That's pretty much it. Go get that data source, use it to build these sort of dashboards, and you can get better insight into how well you're controlling your brand. Thanks, and we'll see you next time.


Y cysys yn Brytyn yn ychydig yw'r cyfrifysg yn ymwybodol cyfrifysg yn ymwybodol hefyd, a hefyd yn ymdweud o y cyfrifysg roedd yn y cysys. Ond rwy'n meddwl, mae'r rhywbeth yma yng Nghymru'n 2011, 5 yma. Ac rydyn ni'n gyd-dwy'n meddwl yng Nghymru, ac rwy'n meddwl i'r cysys, yn ei fydd yn ymdweud a'r fydd yn ôl i dyn nhw ymddangos o dwyloedd ynghyrch cyfweld y clyf yn ymdegol. Cŷr yr oedd yn ymdegol i'r borgwaith, ac mae'n fath o'r bobl arall. Yn gweithio, maen nhw'n gweithio… Yn gweithio'n gweithio i'r gael ymdegol newydd i'r ddweud yng nghymru. Felly mae'r bwysig o'n oedden nhw'n ymdegol, ysgrifetau sydd yn dystryctifol. Ac mae'n cael ei ddweud. Diolch yn cael ei ddweud. Ac mae'n cael ei ddweud. Osterity, cyfraffau, yn oed o'r pethau'n cael ei ddweud, ac yna'r gwybod, mae'n cael ei ddweud. Dw i'n credu, yna'r ddweud yn cael ei ddweud. Ond efallai, mae'n dweud o'r gweithiau'n gwybod, oed oherwydd yna yng nghyfwyr. Yn y gallai, mae'n cael ei ddweud, yna'r gweithiau'n gwybod, a fyddwch chi'n wneud yn ôl yw chyfrwngodd. A gynnwb�rch andreid, ydych chi'n gynnwg pethau'r talion. Diolch i'r EU, mae'n blaenwyr ar gyfer y lleiwyr. Y lleiwyr ar gyfer y lleiwyr, y lleiwyr ar gyfer gweithiwyr, a beithio'r gwneud ystyriedau ar yr wych, wych a'r market yw. Rhys i'w cysylltu, roedd o'n gwneud ymlaenwyr sydd wedi bod yn angen i'r adeg. Y cyfnodau o gafod o'r cynhyrchu arlaen o'r cyfnodau yn sicr yn siarad â'r awsteraeth. Bydd yw'n 2011. A'r Gwyrddoedd a'r Gwyrddoedd nesaf yn cael eu cyfnoddau byddo i'r awsteraeth, a'r ddaeth yn cael ei wneud bydd hynny yn ddod y cerdd iawn i gynhyrch i'r awsteraeth a'r awsteraeth a'r awsteraeth.  Felly, mae'n amser o mellewinio. Rwy'n gweithio i'r gweithio, mae'n gweithio i'r gweithio ar y morhyf sydd yn y 15%. Mae'r Gymraeg pari wedi'i sefydliadau, i'r 50 pethfrensio gwahanol. Mae'n gweithio i'r gweithio i'r 50 pethfrensio gwahanol, 45 ydy'r cyflwyno yn yw'r cyflwyno. Felly, mae'n meddwl i'r cyflwyno. Cymru? Y rhai ddwy cyflwyno sy'n cyflwyno, mae'n Melonchon. Y pari yw'r cyflwyno ar hyn yn ymwneud. Mae'n ddweud, mae'n ddweud y pwbl ar y cyflwyno ymwneud i'r cyflwyno ffwrdd ymwneud. Mae'n ei ddweud i'r Ffranc yw'r gweithio ar y ddechrau y Llewad Trafai, ond mae'r Llewad Lleidwyr yn Llywodraeth Llywodraeth. Rwy'n gweithio'r fenomenon i'r Unedlaeth Cymru, a here in Britain we have the Corbyn Phenomenon. I think this is the answer to what they said five years ago when they said they refer to the danger that people would refuse to accept all this. It's starting to find a political expression, this opposition of working class people, of young people all across Europe. Britain, which up until recently you could have made jokes about this sleepy Britain off the coast of Europe where nothing much seemed to be happening and suddenly Britain is catapulted into the centre stage of the European class struggle with the phenomenon around Corbyn. But before going on to discuss the emergence of Corbyn it'd be useful to look at what's actually been happening in British society in the last few years. Some of you are probably too young to remember the 2008 crash. I don't remember the 1929 one though, I guarantee that. I was born a little bit later. But what happened after 2008? Just to give you an idea, this is UK debt, the national debt as a proportion of GDP. This is what's happened in the last few years. You can all see that. Whether you're applying austerity, cutting public spending, attacking pensions, attacking welfare with the excuse that this is necessary to get down the debt, you see how successful they've been and they're projecting that that debt will continue to grow. You remember how it suddenly ballooned. When the banks were on the verge of collapse the state handed over huge amounts of money to the banks, not just in Britain but on a global scale with the idea that capitalism can't work without the banks, massively increasing the debt and then they presented the bill to the working class. Suddenly they discovered that pensions were too high, welfare is too high, we have too many hospitals, too many schools and there was a generalised, the attack had been going on for years but there was an acceleration to this process. Compare this to just a few years ago. In 1989, believe it or not, Britain actually had a surplus on its annual balance. It had a surplus, not a budget deficit but actually a surplus in its budget. But since then obviously it worsened. This year there's an estimated £19 billion deficit on the state spending and income and combined with all the other effects, pay and interest etc. This year they will add another £48 billion to the debt. The total debt has reached £1.6 trillion. In Euros that's almost the same. That makes it easier for us in doing lead-offs. We don't have to use a calculator for the European comrades anymore. That is about 85% of GDP. It works out that something like, you do all know, all of you who work and live here, you have £25,000 of that debt belongs to you because the average per person broken down is that. By the end of this Parliament, with these Tories in power, with all the cuts that they're carrying out, they expect that debt to reach £1.7 trillion. Compare this to the past in another sector. Household debt, shouldn't just look at the public debt, but household debt, particularly in a country like Britain. In 1971, household debt represented 30% of GDP. When the crisis hit in 2008, 2009, that had reached almost 100% of GDP. That's the debt of families in this country. Since then it's gone down to just under 90%. That can be explained partially by many families struggling to pay off their debt in a situation where they don't have the confidence about the future. That also explains the sluggishness in the growth of the market when people are having to dedicate a significant part of their wages to paying off the accumulated debt of the past. Unemployment in this country, they pride themselves that unemployment is below 6%, which is about half what it is in France. The British capitalists explain that the French, the reason why the French are in such a mess, is because they did not do what the Germans and the British did to their working classes before, i.e. flexibleisation of labour, casualisation of labour, zero-hour contracts, etc. There's an element of truth in this in the sense that the French bourgeoisie are terrified of the way the French workers could react. Considering the history and the traditions of the French working class, May 68, but it goes right back to the Paris commune, they did delay, to a certain degree, the attack. This year they launched the attack on labour rights, which provoked, if you remember, that massive movement of the French working class, which is just a taste of what is to come in France. We're coming back to Britain. Yes, unemployment is low relative to other countries, but we also have to look concretely at the fact that we have what is called the working poor in this country. We have many people who are working, but they're working in poverty conditions because they push the wages down so low, just to give you some figures from Oxfam. According to Oxfam, 500,000 people in this country are now reliant on food parcels to survive. Two million people in the UK are estimated to be malnourished. This is one of the richest countries in the world. It's in the top five or six countries for GDP, and yet there are two million people classed as being malnourished. Three million are at risk of becoming so, so we could have five million malnourished in the next period. 36% of the UK population are just one heating bill or a broken washing machine away from hardship. That's what separates them from having just enough to survive to falling into poverty. It says one in six parents have gone without food themselves to feed the family. This is Britain, a title here from the BBC. More UK workers earning less than living wage research shows, and the living wage is not the minimum wage. The living wage is actually higher. It says that the number of UK workers earning below the so-called living wage has risen to close to five million according to the research, which is equivalent to about a fifth of employees. I don't want to give too many figures. The number of workers on the minimum wage has doubled in the past 15 years. They introduced the minimum wage and it was presented as a great victory, which in part it was. But then you keep the minimum wage so low that the bosses have no problem in pushing everybody else down towards the minimum wage. That's what's happened in the last 15 years. But according to other calculations, the number of workers on the minimum wage are expected to double again between now and 2020 in four years' time. So yes, there are jobs, but there are jobs at these wages. What the British are telling the French is, you should be doing the same if you want to stay in the market. Recently, we had the referendum in Britain, which went rather badly for Cameron. Now, it poses a big problem. We had a discussion earlier on about the need for capitalists to widen their markets, to conquer bigger and bigger markets. Well, Britain exports about 28% of its GDP. Over a quarter of everything which is produced in this country is exported. About half of that goes to the European Union. Just to Germany alone, something like 11% of British exports go to Germany. 8% to Holland, 6% to France and so on. And they're facing the dilemma of possibly losing access to that single market, which for them poses the problem of how you survive in the world market. Now, that's a separate discussion which we'll take up later on. But what is the programme of the bourgeois in Britain to solve this problem? Well, I found the programme of UKIP a couple of years ago. I think they've edited it slightly since then because there are people like me and others who have the nasty habit of looking at their website and finding out what they really stand for. But it actually does represent the programme of the bourgeois, such as, for example, scrapping statutory maternity pay. Women who get pregnant will no longer receive financing from the state during pregnancy. What a marvellous progressive measure we have here from UKIP. They would put to tender key national health services that increase a flat rate of tax, i.e. massively reducing the taxation level for the rich and pushing it up for the working class. If you read it, it is really the programme of the bourgeois. And that's what stands behind UKIP. Of course, it's interesting to observe how a party that stands for this then gets all these votes and some of them working class votes. The question is, why? The reason is, there's nobody, none of the mainstream parties, are explaining to the working class the real cause of the crisis and what should be done about it. They give a very simplistic solution. There's not enough jobs, kick out the foreigners. There's not enough hospital beds. Kick out the foreigners. Little detail. You kick out the foreigners, there wouldn't be any hospital beds. I've had the unfortunate experience recently of having to go to for a few check-ups. When you get to the age of 25, tens to five. You get a few aches and pains here and there. I go into the hospital. One doctor I talk to, he's from Iraq. And we talk about the terrible bombing of Iraq. Another doctor I talk to is from Pakistan. The nurse is Nigerian or Filipino or Indian. And I'm thinking, and you want to get rid of the immigrants and think the system can work. Care workers, old people, old, white, let's say Anglo-Saxon people who need care when they're old. Most likely it will be a Filipino, an Nigerian, an immigrant from some of the part of the world or within Europe itself. There are 3.5 million EU citizens in this country. But the solution of these people is reduce immigration, get control back of our borders, and that solves everything. And of course it solves nothing. But the reason why a section at least of working class people did vote for UKIP is because they are suffering. They are at the bottom of the ladder. They haven't got jobs, services are being destroyed and they're looking for somebody who offers some kind of radical anti-establishment position.   Somebody translate. It's slang for cigarette.  When he's actually a stockbroker. But this shows you how a section of the bourgeois can use racism, anti-immigration rhetoric and propaganda to divide the working class and try and win a section of workers to their policy. This of course will not last forever. Because you see, UKIP has actually achieved what it was set up to achieve, the independence so-called of the UK, breaking with the European Union. I've heard many in other talks I've given what's going to happen with UKIP, all these people who vote UKIP. How do you explain it? Well, the question is this. Once Britain is fully out of the European Union, which is to happen in the next couple of years, unemployment is not going to go down. In fact, if you consider the world scenario, irrespective of whether they're in or out of the European Union, unemployment is destined to grow. If you look at the programme that they're applying, the programme is one of a destruction of the NHS, whether they're in the European Union or out. It's a necessity of capitalism to cut their costs and within a certain period of time we're going to have an independent UK which will actually be worse off than before. In that you'll soon see some people blaming Brexit for the crisis, which it won't be. It can exacerbate it, but it's not the cause. The real cause is the general crisis of capitalism on a global scale. UKIP in Britain is a phenomenon which is not exclusive to Britain. Worse than UKIP in Greece you have the Golden Dawn, open Nazis, not growing significantly but still a presence on the right. In Italy you have the Northern League. The Northern League is a funny party. It was called the Northern League because it was against the Southerners, you see, and against Rome, Rome that consumes everything in Italy. If the North could only separate from the rest. And now they've suddenly discovered that it's better to change tack because it's difficult to win the votes of Southern Italians with that kind of programme. So they've turned more into a kind of right-wing racist organisation looking for very fascist allies even within the rest of Italy. That phenomenon is there. In France we have Le Pen on the right and Mélenchon of course on the left. And in Britain UKIP is the equivalent. It's part of an international phenomenon which is the traditional parties that govern the countries are collapsing, losing support. It's happening in France. The Socialist Party is facing a huge collapse electorally. In Italy a lot of the traditional parties went a long time ago. The instability and the fragmentation of the political scene there is a result of the crisis of the system. In Spain we have the PSOE risks splintering, breaking up and more votes could pass over to Podemos. So what we have across Europe is a polarisation to the left and to the right. You get some people, all these people voting for these racist parties. Throughout history when there's a crisis of the capitalist system you see this polarisation to the left and to the right. The Nazis came to power in 1933 but the biggest Communist Party outside of the Soviet Union was the German Communist Party with almost half a million members and 4 million votes. The social democracy also had millions of votes. It's the same in all these countries before right wing reaction comes to power there's always a movement of the working class which attempts to change society. It's the failure of that attempt which prepares the ground for the right wing. So forces like UKIP or Le Pen could become major forces only on the basis of intense class struggle and the failure of the working class to change society and to take power because going back to UKIP the reason they get the votes the Labour leaders are not explaining the real reason for the crisis. They're trying to find a solution within this system and that means they can't give the answers that are required. The answer to solving the problems of the NHS and not attack the immigrants increase the spending on the national health. That's the solution. They say there's not enough money. They complain that we're living too long. How many times have you heard that? I thought when I was growing up that if you increase the average of life expectancy everybody would be happy. We're getting older and living longer. We can enjoy life for more. Now we're told it's a problem but you're living too long. Why? You get your pension at 60 or 65 and you might be taking it for the next 20, 25 years? Why God forbid? Let's kill off the workers early it's one way of doing it or increase the age of retirement that we're doing. So what is positive is presented as negative under capitalism but they say they use that as an excuse. The number of people who are on a pension proportionate to the number of people working has grown but they ignore one little detail. The productivity of labour has grown to the nth degree in the last 50 years. The number of workers can actually produce far more wealth than in the past. So it's a false argument to say we have too many old people too many sick people all the rest of it. The fact is the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few and if you look at the process over the last 30 years the concentration of wealth they talk about the 1% and the 99% but when you actually read them closer they say well actually we should be looking at the 0.1% because there's a huge difference in wealth even between them and the 1% never mind the rest of us and in the last 30 years the concentration of wealth at one end and the growth of poverty at the other end has massively increased and that's a consequence obviously of the way capitalism functions. This monopolisation and concentration are essential aspects of capitalism this is enhanced even even further. Now what's concerning the bourgeois is you see they're trying to achieve some kind of stability within the system but there are different types of stability there's political stability there's social stability now in order to an economic stability obviously in order to rebalance the economy and get it functioning on their point of view what the policies that they're required to adopt are actually provoking social and political instability because as they try to balance the books let's say more and more people are falling off the edge at one end and drawing conclusions political conclusions and looking for alternatives therefore they must be quite worried about the fact that the other Europeans in the negotiations over Brexit are coming out with the idea that they are going to be hard in the negotiations and the ideal of course would be that they get access to the single market and they make a compromise over immigration but that's going to be very difficult because you see if the Europeans and by Europeans I don't mean the comrades sitting here I mean the capitalists from these countries the Europeans if they make any serious concession to Britain in these negotiations will be opening the door to more and more countries across Europe posing the question let's have a referendum too because there's a widespread anti-European union move developing across Europe it exists in France it exists in Italy how many people in Italy now say bring back the lira there's this move that exists and if they make any concessions it could be the beginning of the fragmentation of the European Union the breakup of the European Union the breakup of the single market which would be disastrous from the point of view of the interests of international capital because they need to widen their markets not narrow them so that's the dilemma facing them but look at what it's doing to the Tory party the Tory party in reality is split right down the middle Theresa May you see there's the switch that she's done and now she's a hard line hard brexit here and how do you explain that well it's the Tory party itself it's the ranks of the Tory party and even a section of the electorate they're trying one to keep people voting Tory instead of going over to UKIP they have that problem and two trying to hold the party together which is in fact divided there's a little item here from June and it said that this was on the 28th of June it said yesterday around 40 Tory MPs who backed the remainside in the referendum held a secret meeting I love these secret meetings so secret it gets into the evening stand a secret meeting in Westminster Hall where at least a dozen were described as virulently anti-Boris and by the way talk about the decline of Britain I think the figure of the foreign minister of this country embodies and epitomises the whole of the decline of Britain when I was in France a couple of weeks ago don't know if I've got it here somewhere I read that Boris at the party conference actually said the building of the foreign ministry from this office we govern an empire seven times the size of the Roman Empire he said that at the party conference I read that and I thought he's crazy does he really think they're going to rebuild that? one two, imagine being the son of an Indian or a Pakistani or a West Indian second, third generation in this country and the foreign minister of your government is boasting about the empire that they used to have ignoring everything they did to the colonial peoples but it shows you what a joke it's become even more funny is when you see him talking about Syria if it wasn't so tragic but there is a split in the conservative party and it's a consequence of this crisis Theresa May is attempting to hold the party together but they cannot stop that process from unraveling at a later stage I have to quote this one it's from the Washington Post when she spoke at the conservative party conference Theresa May boasted about Britain being the fifth largest economy in terms of GDP and it says the headline says after her speech it dropped to sixth because in that short period of time the devaluation of the pound meant that the value of British GDP relative to others had slipped to sixth position that's some impact on the process now coming closer to home in the sense of the working class of this country what we've seen in the last two years has been a sudden leap in the process we're talking when we do discussions about Marxism and dialectical materialism and we talk about things turning into their opposites and quantity and quality and all that stuff I'm sure that somebody outside listening would probably think what the hell are they talking about but here we have an example of a sudden leap in the consciousness in Britain a sudden change in the political situation which is not that sudden it's not a surprise for us Marxists it is the product of everything I've described here there is a huge layer of the population which is suffering really suffering and another section which is just holding on they've got jobs, they've got the money that life is tougher than it used to be and yet if you looked at some figures for example the strike figures for 2015 in Britain if you were applied a mechanical rigid approach well you'd say 81,000 workers were involved in strike action in 2015 that is the smallest number since record began in 1893 now if you read this you could say well everything's fantastic in Britain isn't it workers are not going on strike they must be so happy but the truth is somewhat different as Marxists we don't just look at this there are some reasons that you can explain this Italy also has a very low number of strikes the reason is with the crisis in the economy particularly in industry where jobs are at risk it's not easy to suddenly just get up and go on strike and basically put yourself forward as a candidate for the next worker to get sacked there is that terror in the factories in the workplaces that explains partially this but this is not enough to understand what's going on Lenin used to study in detail strike figures to understand what's happening but it's not enough you have to look at some other aspects as well you can actually have a political radicalisation to the left and not much going on on the trade union front the two things can happen of course we have another phenomenon apparently this I found this was interesting although fewer strikes more strikes lasting more than one day which means that where workers have been pushed to the limit to come out the disputes are more bitter are stronger the workers are more determined I think that's an indication of what will happen in the future when the working class starts to move but beyond that what we see around Corbyn is a huge phenomenon 81,000 workers participating in a strike and half a million join the Labour Party they're not going on strike but they're doing something else they're looking for a political tool a party an instrument with which to challenge the austerity what I said right at the beginning from the economist at some point people will get fed up and will start to resist this Corbyn phenomenon is the same as Podemos it's the same as Sirius of Before it it's an attempt of working class people to forge a party which they need but let's look at the Labour Party again there we see a sudden change in effect almost changing into its opposite the same party up until two years ago this party was dominated by the Blair Rights in the parliamentary Labour Party it is still dominated by the Blair Rights in the bureaucracy it is still dominated by the Blair Rights but two years ago they also dominated right at the bottom if you went to a local Labour Party meeting in a lot of areas very small numbers of people coming along and it would sometimes I've been to meetings where almost half the people there were councillors there was very little life in the Labour Party at that stage but you had Blair dominating for years you had the attempt to break the link between the Labour Party and the trade unions they successfully changed some of the constitution clause 4 part 4 was removed from the constitution which about public property and it was moving in a certain direction then what happens 2010 elections Labour Party loses the elections Ed Miliband if you remember do you remember red Ed it wasn't to do with his hair it was to do with his apparent standing to the left of his brother David my other Bolshewick in the Labour Party now Ed Miliband what did he do some of you will remember he tacked very very slightly to the left and he won some of the trade union votes and he clinched the party leadership by 50 point something defeating his brother after that there was a thinking in the Labour Party bureaucracy and the tops that we're not going to allow the trade unions to decide the next leader of the Labour Party was out of the thinking Ed Miliband collaborated in changing the rules and if we look back when they changed the rules which meant one man one vote one woman one vote one person one vote it looked like and it was a reactionary step in the sense that it was an attempt to remove the power of the trade unions from inside the Labour Party take away their big block votes and they thought they were being very clever and what was behind the thinking of the rule change which said not just one person one vote but three pounds and a click and you vote for the leader and you can join the Labour Party as a supporter and vote for the leader what was the thinking the thinking was this the masses are always more moderate than the activists and I'm thinking Jesus Christ how more moderate could you be than some of the people I have spoken to in the Labour Party at that time that's the theory however if we widen out the electoral base to the public the more moderate public will come in and they will drown any of these potential lefties in the ranks of the party it's actually the other way round what happened was they opened the doors to the party to a mass of people but even that by itself wouldn't have been enough because I'm telling you if last year in 2015 when they had the first vote for party leader if Corbyn had not been a candidate you would not have had half a million people joining to vote who do you vote the other three candidates there's not a cigarette paper between them to distinguish them they all have the same thinking it wouldn't have happened even if it had that phenomenon what happened was the combination of two things which the Labour rights to this day have not really understood is the possibility of people to come in and vote and two a candidate who stands against austerity which shows the huge potential which already existed within British society for a political movement an opposition to austerity it just needed a point of reference which wasn't there Corbyn provided it again another mistake the Blair rights made I remember when Corbyn he had 17 MPs nominating him and if you read how it went when the leadership race came up in his office with other people shall we put John MacDonald or shall I in the end Corbyn and they thought raise the flag just to show we're still here none of them thought what was going to happen would happen but the combination of these factors you go on TV the first time they go on TV the four candidates and the process starts once Corbyn was there with his anti austerity measures tens of thousands hundreds of thousands started to come in to the Labour Party because they saw in him a politician worth supporting and you see what happened subsequently Tony Blair has twice written articles saying I don't understand why this is happening and I read it and I thought I know you don't understand but you don't need to say it if you're stupid don't go around saying that you are stupid just shut up you know the saying it's better to shut up and let people think you're stupid than to talk and let them see that you actually are but they couldn't understand it why because they're completely out of touch but what's really happening in British society they don't understand what's happening in working class neighbourhoods what's happening to people whose benefits have been taken away from them just the other day the news was that Concentrix it's an American company which was brought in to check on tax credit claims and the idea was a private company will be more efficient at cutting the amount of benefits we pay and they were taking benefit of a lot of people who actually had a right to it and such was the complaint this government has had to take the contract away from Concentrix and bring it back in house and get government workers to do the job but these attacks on the poorest layers they're attacking the layers that least can tolerate this crisis and these attacks and there's a seething anger developing from below during the referendum campaign I saw on TV a woman I think from the north of this country somewhere she had a northern accent anyway don't know if it was Yorkshire or Lancashire anyway they said to her ah but if we leave the European Union it'll get worse and she said what worse than what we already have worse than this and there is a part of British society which people like Tony Blair they live on another planet to be honest and that's why they made that big mistake we have this completely new phenomenon which is the Labour Party from being a party of 180,000 members they used to say tripled it's actually practically almost quadrupled it's membership it's 650,000 members I think one of the biggest if not the biggest left party in Europe in absolute terms in numbers and it's made up of a membership which is young people workers working people who want change they want an end to the austerity and you see the viciousness of the bourgeois attacking Corbyn they attack him by saying he's unelectable I always thought well if he's unelectable why are you so concerned just leave him alone if he's such an idiot if he's such a crazy left that can never win votes well just carry on in fact there was one article which would really make me laugh in the Economist from September talking about Corbyn having taken over and they say the conservative government can expect years without being seriously challenged in Westminster i. with Corbyn at the head of the Labour Party how can they ever win an election the more serious bourgeois however realised that you see they know what they've got to do working class people know what's happened or what's coming but the serious bourgeois are at the top they know the programme they have to apply I quoted part of it it was in the UKIP programme it's a brutal attack on the working class privatise the national health service attacking education at all levels and a decline in living standards which will be massive they know that's coming the clever bourgeois also know that if the Tories do that for the next three four years they will pay the next election and the only alternative is the Labour Party and that's the problem they've got this party which for 100 years they have used when the Tories lose Labour comes in Labour loses swing back to the Tories the system was based on the two parties with very little difference between the two in terms of policy except maybe during the economic boom when capitalism could afford the NHS and other reforms but in the recent period you can hardly tell the difference between the policies of the Blairite leaders of the Labour Party and the Tories to have a Labour Party in a position where it could win an election on the basis of brutal attacks by the Tories led by Corbyn is a huge concern for the bourgeois of this country and they have been doing everything you see all the dirty tricks that they've pulled out the barrage of attacks prince anti-Semitism anti-Semitism in the Labour Party you know you talk to any Labour Party member and you say anti-Semitism where where is the anti-Semitism you know what it is if anybody in the Labour Party dares to say that we support the Palestinians against what the Israelis are doing that's anti-Semitism because you're against Jews you see they've constructed this myth and they're spreading it to the sun Labour's vicious attack making out that he's an-electable he can't run and do his job all kinds of stuff is being pulled out the reason is they want to get rid of him and they weren't happy with once they had a second election and let's see what happened what did they achieve by having the second challenge to Corbyn he increased his majority in percentage terms massively increased the number of people voting for him over 300,000 by the way he was able to joke in Parliament with Theresa May when she congratulated him he said I am rather proud of the fact that over 300,000 people voted for me which is something you can't say Madame May you know whatever they call each other the right honourable Theresa May and that's the truth of the situation there is this surge from the left around Corbyn now what are they going to do because they have one hell of a problem on their hands they tried to get rid of him they made him stronger they've increased his votes they've increased his majority but it's still the same MPs as before who were sitting around him and they are already immediately after the victory of Corbyn they are plotting again all kinds of proposals you know the Parliamentary Labour Party should elect the Cabinet that means the 90% of right wing MPs should elect the Cabinet that's got to be led by Corbyn elected by over 300,000 working people the two things cannot come together there was talk at one point of an open split that split is there but you can see that the bourgeois their tactics at this particular moment are wear Corbyn down don't split away because if they split if they were to split away that would be a possible scenario the majority of Labour MPs split and form some kind of democratic Labour Party or whatever probably would enter a coalition of some kind with other parties to govern that would be a classic national government scenario the Labour Party in the very short term in that situation would be reduced to a rump in Parliament but having broken from the Labour Party give that kind of government three, four, five years of government with the draconian policies that got to apply at the next round you'd have Labour MPs nominated from below far to the left of the ones we have at the moment and you'd have the prospect of a left Labour government coming to power in this country the bourgeois are looking at that possibility and they're terrified of it because of the power of the British working class that would be unleashed behind such a government here comes the question of leadership what should be done in the Labour Party today well it's obvious you can elect Corbyn as leader but the deputy leader needs to be changed too doesn't he? Watson comrade Watson who speaks in Labour Party capitalism isn't the problem business and that and all those others who are really a lot of them are just Tories in disguise over to the Tory Party or the Liberal Party Liberal Party is not so good because it doesn't offer as many careers that's the problem but this is a process of radicalisation of the working class and the youth expressing itself politically and the first stage is this Corbyn phenomenon but what would a Corbyn government do? at the moment all the ranks are uniting in the Labour Party to support Corbyn and we support Corbyn we're in the Labour Party or at least those comrades who haven't been expelled for saying Blair right traitor ten years ago on Twitter did it exist ten years ago on Twitter? thousands of people have been expelled or suspended for the slightest excuse because they were desperately trying to reduce the left but there is a problem Corbyn is the leader but he leads a Labour Party which is dominated by right wing Blair rights therefore the next task surely is a battle in every constituency from the bottom upwards to change the MPs if you want a left Labour government you can't have it with these Labour MPs you know what the problem is the dilemma that Corbyn is facing is if he announced that which is what he should do there would be a split in the Labour Party the next day the MPs all those MPs would have made a nice career out of politics voting austerity and all the rest of it if they smelt the threat of re-selection they would split because they would know the next election they're going to remove us anyway so they would split and try and destroy the Labour Party from outside with the support of Murdoch media, a baraj of propaganda against the Labour Party so Corbyn is really trying to square the circle they do all this to him and what does he do come back all is forgiven it's like the prodigal son they come back with daggers behind him in one article I can't find it the financial times actually when it's said I think it's here here's the language of the democratic bourgeoisie British bourgeoisie whatever happens over the next few days a challenge should be mounted this was back in in I can't find it now, early this year having unshieved the dagger Labour MPs cannot now draw back the dagger that's what they're talking about there was one MP do you remember that woman MP when they accused the Blairites of stabbing him in the back I wouldn't stab Corbyn in the back I'd stab him in the front and doesn't get suspended doesn't get expelled for such a comment and yet anybody who just says boo I don't like you you're out at the Labour Party if you're on the left if you're on the right you can say whatever you like now the problem is this Corbyn cannot carry out even the policies that he stands for with this parliamentary Labour group it's so obvious it's obvious to anybody he cannot do that and he will therefore be forced to compromise if he wants to hold them together and the bourgeoisie are not stupid they understand that during the Labour Party conference John MacDonald gave an interview to the BBC he explained that his vision of a Labour Government would be an interventionist Labour Government collaborating with the private sector to create wealth for everybody it's the same line we borrow money and use it to stimulate the economy well that is not good enough if we're going to change society and even to end austerity in Britain today what is required is a Labour Government with left Labour MPs elected by the rank and file MPs who are not there for a career but who are there to represent working class people and who will carry out policies in the interests of working class people and it's not even enough to have that you've got to have a fully worked out programme with this level of debt with this crisis that we have and the situation we're facing if you want to keep the NHS if you want to keep free education and if you want to start improving the lives of ordinary working class people you've got to nationalise the major companies of this country and the major banks they'll take them over and run them in a planned manner and the Government would have to do and if you don't do that if you want to know what the alternative is just look at the other end of Europe and look at Greece if you want to know what happens if you don't apply a socialist programme look at Greece the Troika forced the Greek Government with all its promises free electricity for 300,000 families do you remember all that programme that you made in very popular Cyprus was riding high in February last year to 80% popularity rating do you know how many votes Syriza will get in the next election according to the latest opinion polls 17% as half of what they got in the last election and the party that would win would be the new democracy this kind of reformism by not challenging capitalism when it's in government is forced to buckle under and apply the policies that the capitalists want and in response you have a fall in popularity and the right wing is strengthened that is the danger of the future that's why the battle to win the Labour Party to a genuine socialist programme is at the centre of the class struggle of this country and that's what any decent socialist any worker, any youth that really wants to change the society they should be there to make sure that we get the left Labour government we want with the programme that's necessary otherwise the alternative is unimaginable


The use of fungi as reducing and stabilizing agents in the biogenic synthesis of silver nanoparticles is attractive due to the production of large quantities of proteins, high yields, easy handling, and low toxicity of the residues. Furthermore, this synthesis process coats the nanoparticles with biomolecules derived from the fungus, which can improve stability and may confer biological activity. Studies show that various species of fungus have potential for use in biogenic synthesis, enabling the production of nanoparticles with different characteristics, considering aspects such as their size, surface charge, and morphology. The synthesis mechanisms have not yet been fully elucidated, although it is believed that fungal biomolecules are mainly responsible for the process. The synthesis can be optimized by adjusting parameters such as temperature, pH, silver precursor concentration, biomass amount, and fungus cultivation time. Silver nanoparticles synthesized using fungi enable the control of pathogens with low toxicity and good biocompatibility. These findings open perspectives for future investigations concerning the use of these nanoparticles as antimicrobials in the. This article was authored by Mariana Gilger Casagrande and Renata Dalima.


It costs over a billion dollars and can take over a decade to develop a new drug. And that's irrespective of whether that drug is for some huge market or for an NTD. The amount of research, the amount of effort is the same. Clearly, to get the ball rolling, we need some combination of government subsidies, philanthropy. But we also need this idea of having some revenue stream. And to me, the revenue stream is best from a major market disease. So if you have a not-for-profit group and they have a diversified portfolio of major market diseases and neglected diseases, when they have a success with a major market disease, they can use revenues from that to plow it back to subsidize research on the diseases that are still too high-risk for the for-profit entities to pursue. And in that way, we try and cover the entire spectrum. We started an entity called Drive. It's a small, non-profit organization and Drive is an acronym for Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. What we did in Drive was we sold the rights to a major market antiviral and we used those revenues to subsidize research in dengue fever and chicken gun. And this is why pharmaceutical research is so expensive because most of the time we fail. Occasionally we succeed, thank goodness. And those times when we're successful, that gives us the opportunity now to go back and not just use the revenues that we've obtained but the knowledge. The knowledge is really critical.


What's going on everybody? Got Kyle here with Layton Sports Cards and we are ripping one box of 2022. This is Topps, Chrom, Platinum, Anniversary Baseball and this one is for Vincent G. Good luck Vincent. Let's see what we got my friend. Some plat. I thank you Nancy for the subscription. Welcome, welcome. Alrighty, good luck Vincent. Got a Refractor Jose Barrios for the Blue Jays. This one is Matt Olson absolutely been killing the ball this year man. Matt Olson broke the Braves record last night with 52 homers. Crazy, crazy. Everyone on the Braves is hitting well but there's a Jim Bonning X-Fractor. X-Fractor for the Phillies not numbered. Got a Raffy Devers and Lou Gehrig. We've got Blue Colton Welker on the Blue Mini Diamond. This one's a rookie to 199. Blue Mini Diamond rookie for the Rockies Colton Welker. Dantra Willis and Hun Jin Ryu. Come on, let's see some low numbers. Beerling Rookie and Kintama Yeda. Alrighty guys, no cue after this box if anyone wants to get something going. I can rip it for you right away. There's a Refractor Rainy Johnson, the photographer. Got Rainy Rosarena. Jeff McNeil, Molliter, Carlos Correa. It's a Fuchsia. Fuchsia Atomic is Keith Hernandez. Nice one there for the Mets. That's number 2100. Hernandez there. Nice little mustache. Ethan Hernandez. Robin Roberts. Shane Boz Rookie. Luck here, Vincent. Rookie Bryce Elder. Danzby. Otto Lopez and Seah on the Rookie Base. Seah Suzuki. King Felix. Got a Refractor Derek Lee for the Cubs. This one is Jackson Kowar and Vladdy Jr. Dennis Eckersley and Granky. And guys, no cue after this one. Somebody wants to get something going.  There's Eli Morgan on the Fuchsia Atomic to 100. Guards. Mookie Betts. Rookie Fortes. I feel like Jacksonville is a tough week too for the Chiefs honestly. It's a jump. They've been looking pretty solid, especially at home. Calvin Ridley. There's a Refractor Rookie Riley Adams. Got Luke Voitz. Bob Gibson. Come on. Let's see a red. Let's see an orange. Price and Stott. Mark Burley. It's a green. Got a green Ralph Kiner. That's the 99 on the green pattern for the Pirates. Trey Mancini. Ryan Howard. And I appreciate you, Jeffrey, grabbing another couple boxes here. We'll get you going next here. Thank you, sir. Let me see what we got. Oh, that's a division spot. Never mind. So still got an open cue, guys. Still got an open cue. Thought I saw a Bowman Chrome hobby. I didn't read far enough. Didn't read far enough. There's a Walker Bueller Refractor. A little butane. Yeah, that's four touchdowns. Good Lord, man. Kelsey went back to the 80s with that fit. I like that fit. I think I saw somebody walking down downtown Orlando with that fit on, honestly, yesterday. Very similar. Oh, there's our Otto. It's going to be rookie Luke Williams for the Giants. Otto's kind of sneak up on you in this one. Giants, Luke Williams. Got Longo. Walker Bueller. A few more packs for you, Vincent. So, Blue Mini Diamond. Goose Gossage. What a mustache there. Goose Gossage. That one is to 199. Blue Mini Diamond. The Yankees. Hey, what's up, Mitchell? How are we doing today, sir? Join a nice Premier League Sunday morning. I think Bournemouth was playing. I don't want to check the score. Forest has an update on me, so we're probably losing. There's a Refractor of George Springer. Thompson and Dave Stewart. Just a couple more packs. Vincent. Starling Marte and Bobby Witt on the rookie. Zero, zero. That is a good result. It's Chelsea, right? Against Chelsea, we'll take that. Hey, thank you, Chris, grabbing a spot. We'll do a, there's a Red Atomic Derek Lee. That one's to 100. Derek Lee for the Cubs, 94 of 100. We'll do a Impeccable Soccer next. Appreciate you, Chris. Impeccable Foto. Just in time, Mitchell got some soccer next. Oh, I got a 1-0 win yesterday. Let's go. Let's go. Newcastle and Sunino on the back for you, Vincent. Righty, sir, that will do it for one box of Tops, Crohn, Platinum Anniversary. Thank you so much, Vincent. We'll get those cards right out. See you, my friend.


Now that we've seen how to do simple descriptive statistics, how easy it is to do some grouping, I want to show you how to join different tables. We've just been working with a single table, but what if we want to join them? So in our new cell, Escape, Enter or Return, two pound signs, there we go, two pound signs, and I'm going to say joining. So we're going to join two tables together. First of all, let's create two tables to join and just to make it really very illustrative. Let's create two tables. I'm going to call the one left table and the other one right table, as I say, just for clear demonstration purposes. So my left table is going to be a table. I've already done all my importing, so I'm just carrying on. I'm going to have the ID column that we created, that computer variable that contained the list object that we created, ID and age, and the names are going to be, I'm going to use symbol notation ID, and let's do age. There we go. And I'm just going to set a primary key. I've got to set my primary key, and my primary key is going to be the ID column. And let's have a look at what this left table would look like. There we go. We see the 10 rows. The ID was 1 through 10, and we see the ages there that were created, and we see ID there is in bold, the column name, the variable name, and that is our primary key. So let's create the right table. And the right table, let's just go through a few things. I'm going to use table table function. Let's make, use the collect function this time from 1 to 15. And the second one, let's round off. So it's round dot each of the element. I want it to be rounded to 16-bit integers, and what I want rounded is, what I want rounded here is random values from a normal distribution with a mean of 100, standard deviation of 20, and I want 15 of these. And then I want the names to be, I want the names to be ID. Let's make that ID, and let's make that one CRP. And primary key, the primary key, very important that has to be ID. There we go. We see ID 1 through 15, and we see these integers taken from a normal distribution. So let's have a look what happens when I join these. I'm going to use the join function, and I'm going to say left table, which is my first argument, left table, and then right table. Let's see what happens, table. And there we go. We note that what was in the left table, which was just 1 through 10, is the only ones included in this, in doing this, this way around, stating left first and then right. Let's just contrast that to joining up the right table and the left table, right table and left table. And now what's going to happen, we see again the 1 through 10, and we see just CRP is listed before age, but it's the same subjects in each of these two that are combined. So the default is just that it would look for rows which are comparable by the primary key, which is ID, and in which values exist in both of these tables. So in 11 through 15, there were no values in the column up here. If we look at this, it just had age from 1 to 10. So there's no age, there's no 11 through 15 with ages in the left table. So they will not be included there. It's only where you have values for both, when you have values for both. Now let's have a look if we do what is called a left join, which is actually what has happened. So if we do join, and we say left table, join, we say left table, and we say right table, and we specify now how the join should happen. So we're going to say how equals a left join. And we use symbol notation there, and we see exactly the same thing. So it looked at the left table, and it would only draw things into this combination based on what is inside of the left table. Now have a look if we do an outer join. So I'm going to say join again, join, and we are going to have left table, left table, and we're going to have right table, and now the how is going to equal outer. An outer join means it's going to do combine both of these, even if no values exist on either side. So if we look at 11 through 15, there were no age values for those. So it's just going to put in an NA, not a number, an NA value, missing value, in these, and that would be an outer join. So there's one more join I want to show you, and that is the anti. So I'm going to say join again, we're just going to join. But look at this, I'm going to say right table first. So right table comes first, then left table, and then I'm going to say how equals, and I remember my colon anti. And now what's going to happen, it's going to take whatever was not there. So it takes the right table first, whatever you list first, it then looks at the left table and see whatever is not combined, what I cannot combine, I'll put those together. If I put left table first and then right table, there'd be nothing. It would be an empty set that would be no rows whatsoever, only my two columns and no rows. So play around with these, with the joins, and move left and right around, and clearly see what happens when you, when you do play around, when you do move them and you do use different joins until you become used to how to join these tables. And that is what makes JuliaDB so powerful to join different tables based on your primary keys.


of the United States. Mr. President, on behalf of the American Business Conference, I want to tell you how delighted we are to be here in the White House with you today. The American Business Conference is an organization comprised of the chief executive officers of mid-range high growth companies. I know that in this kind of environment, bad news tends to capture public attention. But I do want you to know that there are thousands and thousands of entrepreneurial firms in America that somehow or other don't manage to capture the headlines, but are creating thousands of new jobs, permanent jobs in the private sector, and jobs with a future. Our organization represents really the entrepreneurs of America, the risk takers, if you will, the firms that are generating employment and competing successfully in the international marketplace. And they continue to do exceptionally well in terms of creating jobs. In our one sector of American business alone, I have a list of 1,400 companies that meet the very, very stringent standards of the American Business Conference. Mr. President, elements of your economic program, control of government spending, tax reduction, incentives for savings and investment, regulatory relief, and a stable monetary policy have laid the foundation for a period of economic growth and of renewed vitality. We recognize all of us that unemployment continues to be one of our nation's most pressing economic problems, as it has been for the last three or four years. We believe, however, that these programs, if given a chance to work, are going to help reduce interest rates, stimulate savings, and bring down unemployment. It's significant, we think, that business startups are at a near record high. Last year, nearly 600,000 new startups took place in this country. That's double what it was 10 years ago. And this year, thus far, we're only 4% off that high. The American Business Conference is especially pleased by the drop in inflation. We expect that drop this year is going to bring it down to under 6%, as well as the drop in prime interest rate to 13.5% down from 21.5% in 1981. And I certainly can personally attest that we're in the midst of a very healthy rally in both bonds and stocks on Wall Street. In short, Mr. President, we believe that we're experiencing the beginning of a very fundamental change in economic thinking, a change which will benefit the growth sector of our economy and create many, many new jobs and many, many new opportunities. The American Business Conference appreciates all you have done for growing companies such as ours. And without any partisan consideration, we will encourage your efforts to reduce the deficit, to bring down interest rates, and to encourage the formation of new jobs. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, thank you very much, all of you. And thank you. And it's a pleasure for me to speak to you again. I say again because I did last year during your annual meeting. You've achieved a remarkable recognition for an organization established only 18 months ago. Those pessimists who think American business no longer has the energy and the creativity to lead this nation into the 21st century should be here today. And I don't know that I can add anything to what you have just said about this remarkable accomplishment. Incidentally, just before I came over here, I was told that one of our major banks has just lowered its prime to 13. You give proof that with freedom and profit, the profit motive of American can still work miracles. Reflecting your vitality, the American Business Conference earned a reputation for its willingness to take tough stands for the good of America, even when those positions might hurt your enterprises in the short run. And I'm deeply grateful for all the support that you have been to me and to our administration. In particular, I appreciate the leading role you played in mustering business support for the tax bill, even though I was dragged kicking and screaming myself into supporting it. It was a difficult and yet an absolute necessary fight. Arthur Levitt and Jack Albertine, you both were there when it counted as all as you have been during our struggle to get spending under control and to put our economy back in the right track. But if we're to find our way out of the economic thicket that we inherited, we have to keep economic progress as our highest priority. I'm afraid we don't see that commitment from some on Capitol Hill. Some of them seem to be more inclined to exploit our problems than to pass the legislation needed to set things right. By exploiting, I mean that temptation to say with an election coming up. Isn't it maybe better for some if the news stays bad? Well, I can think of nothing that would do more to reassure our people. Then if the Congress acted this week on several vital pieces of legislation before it recesses for the campaign, they could start with appropriation bills. They did pass the budget resolution. But then very many people in America don't realize that that actually isn't a binding or meaningful thing. That's supposed to be the overall spending allowed, but then the committee starts sending in the appropriation bills for each particular program. So far, the House and Senate have passed only two of 13 appropriation bills for the new fiscal year. And that fiscal year begins in just three days. Secondly, the House leadership might also consider bringing to a vote the constitutional amendment, which requires a balanced budget. Passage of that amendment, now bottled up in the House, would do more to convince the American people we mean business when it comes to controlling federal spending than any other single measure. The truth is I've been on the phone. There are 203 signatures on the petition for the committee to discharge that. The polls reveal 80% of the people want it. I respect congressional procedures, but I also have to recognize when I think a committee arbitrarily is using those procedures to deny the will of the people and of their own members. It takes 218 names on that discharge petition, and I've been calling congressmen to persuade them to sign. And I have to tell you that some of the opposite party have told me they can't because of the pressure from their own leadership. In a time of high unemployment, there's also no excuse for the delay in passing the Export Trading Company Act, which can create up to 640,000 jobs here at home. And finally, we owe it to the American people to pass and sign into law this week, the job training bill, a measure that will provide training for up to a million Americans a year. Now, what is different in this and in some of the things that have been done in the past? Well, I can tell you one thing that's different. The past training bills, only about 20% out of the dollar went to actual training. In this particular bill, 70% is going to go to actual training. The other night, I heard a critic complaining, well, all we're doing is suggesting training for jobs that don't exist, this because of the unemployment. But how about every Sunday? I don't know whether you do this. In any city that you want to name, I've done it in Los Angeles, I've done it in New York, I've done it in Washington, other cities. In the past when I've been out there, the Sunday paper turned to the help wanted ads and just count the number of pages. I've counted as many as 65 pages of employers looking for people to fill jobs. And they're back the following week trying again. We're not training for jobs that don't exist. I have spoken of this before and was criticized for doing it as if it showed no compassion for the unemployed. There's no one in the world has more compassion for the unemployed than I do. I was looking for a job in 1932. I'd seen my father lose his on Christmas Eve. What I am talking about is the percentage of people, particularly young people, and they have the highest rate of unemployment in America that need to be trained because those jobs that are being advertised for on the paper require certain job experiences or skills. We could make a debt in that unemployment with that. And this bill, again, as I say, we're waiting for that bill to be passed and sent to me for signature. But we've come, I think, a long way. The economy's poised for recovery, but the country needs leadership and responsible action from the Congress. All of us in Washington must prove that there's been a change in these last two years, that we can control spending and taxes and that the people making decisions are capable of thinking of the next generation as well as the next election. You know, what we're trying to do, they give it names and they start calling it some kind of a new thought or a new program. And in fact, the first complaints that it had failed began before it had been put into effect. But actually, what we're talking about is the same common sense that you have to use every day in business, and that's why you're successful. And the alternatives that are being offered are not new either. What is being offered is a return, a return to those seven years when we spent $66 billion on job programs. And yet in those same seven years, unemployment continued to grow and averaged over the seven years, 7% or better. They're going back to flooding the market with money and that that will be the answer and it will for a short period of time and then in about two years you'll have another recession, worse than the one that you just got through fixing with inflation higher and unemployment higher. Actually, what we're talking about is building a solid base for the economy as the method of providing the jobs the unemployed need and in providing them on a more or less permanent basis instead of just a quick flurry that does no real good but leaves us closer to the brink of disaster than we were before. I'm confident that with responsible leadership in Washington and men of vision like yourselves in the private sector, we can make America great again. And I won't go on but I could point to comparisons that I've been drawing up of other democracies, allies, friends of ours like our own who are continuing down that road of intervention in business, adversary relationship with their own business community, the temporary stimulating with money flood, higher taxes. And the comparison that I'm drawing is two sets of figures. Their unemployment is greater than ours. Their inflation is greater than ours. And you were absolutely right. It is going to be under 6% because for the eight months right now, since last January, inflation in this country is running 5.1%. And we think we can even maybe take it down a little lower than that. In 1976, it was 4.8. And then we saw all of those things that the critics are talking about put into effect. And by the time we got here, it was 12.4. So something must be going right. But again, God bless you for all that you're doing. Stay with it. And I just think that one of the greatest things we can do for American economy is if we can get the government off your backs so that business can do what business is intended to do and is always done in the past for this country up until these last few decades. So thank you very much.


On Saturday mornings it's not uncommon to see dogs, cats or other various animals for sale or trade here at the stock market in Johnson County. But this past Saturday morning a few people saw something so upsetting it led them to call the police. And that led a Johnson County deputy all the way to Elliott County. These pictures were taken of Randy Bentley as he loaded several dogs into the trunk of his vehicle Saturday afternoon. Police were called but by the time a deputy arrived Bentley was gone. Johnson County's Animal Control Officer Deputy Terry Tussie began following leads and located Randy Bentley on Sunday in Elliott County. Bentley was arrested by the Kentucky State Police on unrelated charges and that's when Deputy Tussie saw the dogs. The dogs were sick, emaciated, coughing. A lot of the dogs did not have any shelter. Several dogs had two foot chains around trees and that was it. Deputy Tussie worked late into the night with several animal rescue groups to remove 20 dogs from the property. Randy Bentley was lodged in the Big Sandy Regional Detention Center in Paintsville on warrants from another county but refused to cooperate in this case. He would not sign a voluntary waiver to waive his rights to the animals. As of right now the dogs are pretty much in a hold pattern. Animal rescue groups are taking care of the dogs. They're footing the bill for any medical treatments that has to be done for the dogs. Because this case started in one county and ended in another, it's a little complicated but everyone involved has agreed to work together. I'm in process now of continuing investigating and getting written statements from everybody and then I'll present it to our county attorney and hopefully pursue charges here. Elliott County has to pursue the charges over there. EKB News will continue to follow this story and bring you updates on any charges filed in either Elliott or Johnson County. Reporting in Paintsville for EKB News, I'm Shannon Deskins.