into it this time. So I'm here again like yesterday with Milo Rao, with the writer Edouard Louis, who is also an actor now, I forgot to mention that yesterday, and with the philosopher Geoffroy de la Guennerie, and to discuss the aesthetics of resistance. So yesterday we discussed the roots of left-wing activism in your lives and whether or not there's a form of activism in a way. And we ended with some thoughts on the traditional separation between theory and arts, with Milo saying that to him, Edouard's books are also theoretical works. So Edouard, I think Milo was hoping that you would say a few words about that, about how you consider your own works in that sense and whether that resonates with you. Yeah, I mean, thank you very much, Laura. The thing is, for me, the question is, of course, like blurring the traditional borders between art and theory and literature and everything. But the question is not exactly the question of theory. It's the question of explicit and explicitation. And yesterday we have been talking about confrontation as one of the cornerstone to kind of renew the artistic gesture and to kind of try to make art more radical. And I think that one of the other cornerstones of this revolution that we are hoping for and of this change would be not only confrontation, but explicitation. And this is really what I'm trying to do in my books and what Geoffroy is doing since he's writing theory and what also Milo is bringing, the new things that he's bringing also in within the theatre. I think that in the past, literature has been structured by the fact and the desire of saying not too many things. And I had the impression that when I started to write, the less you would say in a book, and the more you would be recognized, literary speaking and artistically speaking, as if the best review you could get from a literary critique would be, this book is wonderful because it suggests everything and it says nothing. It's not explicit, it's not didactic, it's not pornographic. It's just like everything is suggested and nothing is said. And we can challenge and question this historical rule of literature. Why is it suddenly considered something positive within the literature to not speak? Where does it come from? And I think it's deeply linked to the interconnection between the bourgeoisie and the literature because as we were saying yesterday, the bourgeoisie knows the world, the dominant class know the world, they know how bad the world is, they know how violent the world is, and they don't want to know it. And so they prefer to suggest it in order to never be completely confronted to it. So as if in the past, there was an aesthetic values of not saying the things. There was an aesthetic values of creating metaphors and creating only suggestions. And when you read, for example, the journal, the diary of André Gide, it's incredible to read that André Gide wanted to say things, but in his diary always say, I shouldn't say it, I should just try to find a character that would evoke this idea, that would inspire this idea, but I would never see this idea. And I think what I'm trying to do now, and what also Milau in the artistic field is doing, and it's really related to theory and to what Chopin was saying about the explicit that contains theory, that theory contains, that a literature that would be radical today is a literature that would or not or a theater that would say what it says at the moment of, you know, of the, and in fact, the whole history of the dominant class and the whole story of the bourgeoisie is to always hide reality as it is, you know. Pierre Bourdieu says that when the bourgeoisie eat, they create a ceremony in order to hide that they are eating, that they are eating for physiological reason. When they put a coat, they always pretend that it's only for aesthetic reason and not to get hot and not to get cold.  And I think that to make an explicit art and to make an explicit literature to say what you do at the moment you do it, it's fundamentally anti-bourgeois art. And from that regard, it's a radical art. If I want to say that my father was destroyed by a class system, I say it, I don't suggest it, you know.  I say it, you know. If I say that the world of my childhood was homophobic, I write it, I don't suggest it. I say in my books the world of my childhood was homophobic and it was willing to destroy people like me. And for me, this is really something that is going on also in Millot's theatre. And I wonder how you think about it, Millot, and what is your views on it. But clearly it's, I think, one of the things that we share, and that we share automatically with Geoffroy, because in a way theory is the art of the explicit, so it's related. Yeah, perhaps I can shortly answer on it or some thoughts I had on what you're telling me. So for me the important thing, but I think that the neoliberal rhetorics or the bourgeois rhetorics of the non-explicit, of the trigger warnings, of the safe spaces, of this impossibility to go to an art space and look into the face of the reality of the violence of our economic global system, this is very typical for the whole bourgeois era, but especially I think for now, and the idea of purity in art. So I would state that what we are doing is somehow an art of the impure, using the power of the pureness of the radicality. But what we do as an act in the art field is impure. So my impression is the more you deny radicality in the rhetorics you use in the real world, so to say somehow the more you create fictive worlds where nobody really is appearing, they are super extremely violent. So I mean, that's a bit, let's say, dialectics of the emotions in the neoliberal age. And what for me is the important that we link in arts the violence of the real and how we translate it explicitly into the space of the, or the parallel space of the unreal. So we had yesterday two days ago, no two days ago, before yesterday, our common friend Thomas Ostermeyer was here and it was quite interesting because at one moment he was saying we have to be in the rehearsal space, but we also have to be on the street. So now the artist has to be in both spaces. And it was translated in the press because then it was an article about it and they translated it, now we can't stay in the art space anymore, we have to be on the street. And I think it's exactly the parallelity of these two worlds, what it is all about, you know, when while being artists not denying the negativity of art by the positivity of activism, but bringing it together and talking about the difficulties of this crazy mix, what you do when you are kind of changing art by using reality to do so and vice versa. Now, I wanted to ask you about that because that involves of course, as you've done in the past, highlighting the lives of others, the real lives of others in your cases, whether it's through writing or on stage by highlighting what's happening behind the scenes and what the actors are going through. So how do you as artists, how do you ensure that the people you're working with still have agency in that process? Who should answer first? Edouard, do you want to start perhaps writing about people perhaps that you grew up with and writing about them from a different position nowadays? I keep thinking about what Didier Ribond wrote about writing about the working class when you're no longer part of it in the sense and that tension. How do you approach that and approach the agency of the people that you're writing about? I mean, I'm not interested in agency. I don't say that it doesn't exist or that there are no rooms in people's lives sometimes to achieve things, but when I write what I find important and interesting is to see the situation where people's agency is being destroyed and the possibility of dreaming, of choosing, of making decisions is suddenly destroyed, being destroyed by a situation. And there is always a conservative risk for me in the rhetoric of an agency because if you say people always have agency and if you say people always have room for choice, no matter the situation, then you make people responsible for what they are. What does it mean? It means that if a factory worker didn't study, it's his fault because he didn't have, he had agency and he didn't use it. I mean, if people are destroyed and depressed, they kind of chose it at some point because they had agency and they didn't use it. That is not what I meant. No, no, no, of course. I'm elaborating on what you say, but precisely I think it's an important issue. I know it's not what you were saying, but I think it's I'm precisely thinking that when I published Who Killed My Father about the life of my father, growing up in a working-class family with an alcoholic father, stopping school at 14 years old like his father and his father before him, going to work to the factory, then being destroyed by the accident at the factory and being in bed for years and being destroyed by French politics and the violence of French politics against poor people, there were some and I know obviously that you're not part of it, but it's just like walk this inside me. It's walking up inside me. There were some very bourgeois critics telling me he's denying the agency of his father and for me this reaction was extremely violent towards me and towards my father because what does it mean? It means that if we say my father had agency, it means that he deserved what he got, that he didn't use these agencies, that he didn't use this liberty. So I think that there are some lives that are radically destroyed in terms of agencies. They are completely destroyed in terms of choice and I don't think that it's the whole reality. I don't think it's everyone. I don't think it's everybody, but they are the lives I want to talk about and I leave the bourgeoisie with the little agency and they can do whatever they want, but as soon as I write I'm not into it and it's strange because now in the field of the left, some people pretend that it's more radical to pretend that people always have agency, as if you were violent or conservative in saying that people have not. But what is violent is to pretend that people always have and that they could have made a choice that they didn't make and this is what I really want to understand and that's why I know that it's not what you were saying, but the word agency is completely outside my brain. It's outside my mind because it's... That makes a lot of sense, but it's really interesting at the same time because someone's agency has been destroyed. I suppose there's that tension of you're in the position of writing about it and about them about something that perhaps they can't write about themselves and there is tension there even if it's not necessarily tied to the issue of whether or not you're taking away their agency. No really, but also it's a good thing. It's a good thing that when you cannot speak or the people do it for you and I was in the same position at some point of my life, there was some point in my life where I was hopeless, speechless, where I was a gay working class boy and some people were talking on my behalf and I wouldn't have been able to talk if they didn't talk for me at my place at some point and that gave me the strength at some point to talk. So for me it's never an abuse to write on behalf of someone. It's opening the possibility for the other people to talk, but it's a good thing that we have people who talk for us and in our place when we cannot talk for me. It's the most beautiful thing and so I don't, yeah. Now, Geoffroy, I'd love to have your reaction perhaps because you've also worked with activists by writing books with them with Asa Traoré for instance. How does that come into your work? The idea of perhaps working with someone else and helping them get to the platform that they want to achieve or at least further their platform by working with them? I mean, it's true like Edward, I don't recognize myself into the category of agency or even in the notion of give people a voice or represent the voice of the voiceless and so on. I think that when we engage in a theoretical project, precisely me when I write, it's to fight or to fight against the preconstructed discourse people use to understand themselves. So for example, I wrote about Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Edward Snowden said he was a patriot or said he was in the tradition of civil disobedience and I wrote my book about him and Julian Assange and Sarah Harrison and Jesse Manning. I try to show precisely how they were in another position than in other situations of civil disobedience as they are inscribed in other political traditions. They try to invent a new way of doing politics. When Asa Traoré emerged in France, I have one of the most important voice today of the anti-racist and anti-police movement. Sometimes she uses words of category that like police brutality, like discrimination and so on, that I thought were problematic if you want to understand the reality of the Russian and Polish system in France and in the US. And so I think that the role of the theoretician is not to give a voice, it's precisely to deconstruct all the categories we use spontaneously to understand ourselves. But these categories are part of the system that produces us as subjectivity to the power. And so we think we think ourselves, but we are still thinking thought by the system when we use them. And so the role of the theoretician is to make a rupture with that kind of discourse in order to produce and to radicalize the way people think about their situation. Sometimes I tend to define myself as a radicalizer to make people become more radical in their way of thinking, more systematic, more pure. And I was very struck by what Milo said about the notion of impurity, because I remember when I discussed with him or with artists, in fact, or with Thomas Austerlain, as I always use the category of being not pure. Art is about being mixed, not too systematic to understand the contradiction of life, to be in the side of it's not clear, it's complicated and so on. And it's true that for example, in my work, I often precisely say that theory is much more a quest for purity. It's a kind of drive to try to destroy what we think as contradiction, what we think as impure, what we think as complicated in order to recreate a coherence and to recreate the systematic aspect of life that we perceive spontaneously as impure or complicated and so on and so forth. And so I think that sometimes it's not narcissistic, but it's a pleasure of impurity. For me, to be honest, I always see that as a way of stopping a reflection, because impurity is always for me a lack of systematic thinking or being more in the realm of impurity than of the reality of the society. And that's why when you speak about the issue from the rehearsal room to go to the street and so on, I think it's very important. I had an idea listening to you. I said it's very important to establish connection, of course, between art and politics, but what is most important now? It's probably the fact that politics become more and more an artistic practice. It's not the fact that artists are more politically engaged, but more and more what we see is that activism is becoming a kind of artistic practice or it's more about representation of what's self-acting and not real action. People go to the streets, they take photos and they go back home, and so they don't really act politically, but they give an image of themselves as being actors of political change, and more and more perhaps the sphere of politics become a theater. We speak of political actors, we speak of a political scene, and all our political actions are becoming more and more in the realm of spectacles, of images, and less and less in terms of efficiency, of political efficiency, and that's why we have to make an opposition between art and politics to be politically effective. I would like to answer to this, but perhaps I was unclear in what I mean with not pure or impurity. I think purity, what you mean and what I mean with impurity is perhaps even the same, so we need the perspective of purity to see the antagonism, because I think what the question of agency or let's say the actual neoliberal career of this term is that we would create spaces, editist spaces where everybody has an agency and all antagonisms are exported to somewhere, to a kind of an outside invisibility, you know, like child work. It's just like somewhere else, and in these safe spaces there's agency for everybody, and I think this is the false purity, or that's the purity I actually attack. I want to create, perhaps you could call it spaces of pure antagonism. So spaces for example, and I think perhaps it's also a very different work we are doing, because you can when you are working collectively on a play, for example, and this play is linked, all the roles are linked as allegorical they might be, if it's Jesus or not, they are for the people playing it, they are completely directly linked to themselves and everything you talk about them or you don't even say is absent or too present or mixed or you have this, all these conflicts are in the rehearsal room or on stage or on a film set are totally present. It's not that I produce something and then sometimes later somebody would react. It's a kind of an ongoing process of dealing with these antagonisms, of exploitation or of, I don't know, different ideas, how you want to model a history or your character, you want to be present in it. And for me there is only one way out and that's what we called yesterday solidarity or it's perhaps more simply to put it the history we want to tell together and that we would give something away from ourselves to together tell this history where we appear as a kind of a character, you know, perhaps you know the problem and somebody's doing, television is doing a documentary about you or they send you an interview you made and they cut out like 80% and then you try to find your argument in it and somehow you accept the deal that there is not complete truth but you kind of and that's why for me theater is interesting and why I try always to find a room of extreme impurity that's why I would prefer the street to the rehearsal room somehow or I would try to bring the rehearsal room to the street and mix it together. What we do today evening that was a project that was attacked so many times because what we did is to bring together actors from Mosul and actors from Europe and 90% of the discussions about this project is not what we achieved and what we did together but it is that the white man is flying to Mosul. So this is the neoliberal discussion you have about projects of this because I think all of us and I include myself grew up in a system of complete exploitation where everything every discussion here who talks more how can we then use this discussion I don't know you know we are grew up in a in a system of exploitation that we can't imagine spaces that try to be non-exploitative we just can't understand it anymore somehow and I think art is a way and now we are very pedagogic saying that symbolic space is where you can be antagonistic you can be extreme you can include all differences you might have in your in your in your backstory but at the same time finding a way of telling a story together so that's the thing I'm it sounds very humanist but I'm I'm interested in it to not exclude from the beginning on for example we have a lot of artist collectives in in Germany but these so-called collectives there are people coming from the same milieu having made the same school and then they do theater together and what do you expect as outcome from this I mean as a Marxist not a lot because it's just the repetition of the same and and I try to bring together I don't know in the projects and it's very yeah it's very terrorizing and panicking sometimes people that would never meet outside this this this frame of a of an art project I'm sure I'm sure that's still a complex thing to handle when you're doing it in real time say working in muscle or with people who are in a completely different position in society or in the global world than you are have you ever had any ethical doubts or any regrets about the way you've handled some situations or some productions perhaps Milo and then I will go back to Edouard and Joffre or never I can be short I mean every second night is sleepless for me I'm not a I'm not a very ethical person from my character but I'm confronted to so many contradictions that I'm really and it goes to very simple things we don't have to talk about different cultures the time I have in for example the opera we made in Geneva when the extras arrive and then you have 20 minutes to say you walk from here to there I mean you have to organize sometimes and it's a kind of the dictatorship of the art and that's for me the most the most problematic at the same time strangely also the most boring aspect of of kind of making it round reworking it and this is there for me the ethically most difficult moment when you want to make it visible for a third person that was not in the process and you are very used as an artist and others there perhaps less use that in the end you have to find this this kind of form that is reductive that is redundant that is boring so this is for me the biggest ethical thing and of course the only thing that you can do to fight against it we will talk this evening about it is kind of a real outcome so for example in in Mosul I hope we we made an application for UNESCO project that we will build up a film department there that we bring infrastructure that then is independent like we did it in the in the Congo tribunal did you just like kind of somehow also sometimes try to really separate the artistic world and the and the and the activist work if it's possible or not but that that you have these two lines now I suppose we're very much looking today about strategies for activism and I wanted to ask you because you said yesterday that you perhaps or art or writing is to an extent activism not necessarily left-wing activism but activism but you also work very regularly with people whose career is in activism rather than in writing or in making art so how do you how does that relationship develop and how do you find a balance when you work with people whose entire lives is devoted to activism and not necessarily to thinking about it and then writing or making art about it well it's it's because for me the I don't know how to say that being naive but for me the goal of life is not to write books but to change society so if I write books it's never to write books or to publish ideas or to be happy about a book or a good sentence and so on it's at the end to try to find a way to give tools for people to fight better or to be more effective in order to change the laws or to change culture in which we live so that's why it's true that for example for me I don't have a lot of aesthetic practices I don't go to museum I don't really like paintings I don't like culture I don't go very often to the movie I go often to the opera because DJ is a big fan of opera I love a middle place and I go there very often because it's a very different kind of experience but it's true that for me how to say the definition of writing is to find connections with activists and the people who fight or want to change societies and that's why even when it's very abstract it's a way of finding a way to relate to them with other things that's just experience of indignation and so the goal of life is to change society and that's why my connection with activists is what is most important for me. Edouard do you feel the same at the moment say when you start writing right now if you start working on the new project do you think about that dimension of activism at the same time how do you position yourself as a writer yeah I mean I started as a I started as an activist I started I became an activist when I was 14 years old and I kept like being an activist I was I was a Trotskyist activist in in high school and then I started to write my books and I will tell you about it Milo yes and then I started to write and it was a kind of a kind of continuation of a certain of a way I couldn't I couldn't bear the world that was surrounding me really I was I was born with a with a kind of hate for this world and for its ugliness and for its violence and you know you so if we think in terms of a manifesto for a new art and for a new literature we talked about confrontation I tried to talk about explicitation and maybe another cornerstone of it would be multiplicity and the fact that when you write as Thomas Ostermaier was saying yesterday to Milo you have to be also in the streets and you have to be also in contact with the social movements and you have to be also like in so many different places you can write in the newspapers you can write your books you can be in the street you can do theater projects with with other artists you can go to high school to talk to talk to younger people and I think like you as Joffre said if the goal is to change the world this change can be only achieved through this multiplicity of action because clearly when you write you are not you are not going to reach everybody for me it's an illusion I had in the past you know I was always writing and think like how could it be possible for the people of my childhood the working class people to read my book and in a way if we are realistic they will never read my book because they are working class if they start reading them is because they are not working class anymore and because precisely our society works like in terms of exclusion of the people who have access to culture and the ones who don't have access to culture so to think like how can excluded people read is a contradiction because if they have access to cultures and they are not excluded anymore so of course there are like exceptions and like different people within a milieu and you have like ways of something reaching the people but when I write I now I don't I don't try to write for the working class I write I write for my enemies I write for the bourgeoisie I write in order to challenge them to question them to make them to make them feel bad to ask them why don't you do more why don't you fight this world why are you reproducing this world and then if I want to talk to working class people like people like my family or the people I grew up with then I go in the street then I go to high schools and I talk to the people then I write in the media then I do short videos in the media or things like this but but if you want to really achieve a goal of change you have to you have to practice this multiplicity otherwise you will you will just reach your enemies and it's important to reach your enemies because they have the power and you have to challenge them and eventually destroy their way of thinking and their way of being but but but but it doesn't like it's so many things at the same time and uh it's not it's not in just writing that you will do it and that's why with with Jofra we have been demonstrating we have been writing with Asatra Auré we have been demonstrating with a yellow vest writing about it like I will it will not be achieved through a book and it's not possible but when you write a book you have the possibility of doing all those things together and for me if you are a writer and you never go in the street uh it's a shame it's a shame it's it's it's impossible now we've come upon conflict and antagonism in this conversation and I feel like the horizon in all three of you for all three of you is in a way a form of a new utopia a new a new way of rebuilding from the left and from progressive politics now the question being how do you how do you create a common aim or a common project that is going to overwrite that sense of conflict including on the left we don't have much time left but I was wondering if if one of you wanted to perhaps say a few words about that question of the utopia of the goal Jofra the last word is for you in one minute easy for me now I think I don't believe in the notion of a common aim I think that struggles are provoked and we have to find the singularity of every fight in order to achieve them and to radicalize them and for me more and more I think that the left should be based on something at what I call the vitalism which is to say which which are the forces that tend to destroy life or to mutilate life or to end life of people precarious more than others and we have to to develop the forces of life of health of being in a good shape not endangered and so on and so I would say that the multi-plicit struggles and a kind of vitalism could be the basis of the renewal of the left home I can explain that tomorrow if you worship me and I don't believe in the category of neoliberalism we'll have time we'll have time to elaborate and I apologize for the difficult question at the very last minute okay but thank you but thank you so much for taking a crack at us so we'll be back tomorrow at 4 p.m. to continue that discussion and if you want to stick around there is a very I think interesting discussion at 5 p.m. following our session about the question around the following question can there be global arts with the Brazilian choreographer Lea Rodrigues the director Wajdi Mawad and the Lebanese playwright and visual artist Rabim Rue and Orestes in Mosul if I'm not mistaken tonight at 7 p.m. since we've discussed it thank you so much for following along and we'll see you tomorrow Joe Joe bye and Wajdi's already there


The Government of Taiwan continues to support St. Lucia in its efforts to combat the spread of COVID-19. Hermadi Mark tells us more. The Government of Taiwan continues to support efforts of controlling the spread of COVID-19 in St. Lucia. Their recent contribution is the donation of 14,500 COVID-19 antigen rapid tests. The donation was presented to the Government of St. Lucia by His Excellency Peter Chen. The Taiwanese Ambassador to St. Lucia expressed pleasure on behalf of the Government of Taiwan to continue to assist in strengthening St. Lucia's defenses against the pandemic. I'm also proud to announce that these rapid test kits were donated by a Taiwanese biotech company, ThaiDoc Technology Corporation. And these high-performance test kits were developed in collaboration with the top Taiwanese research institution, Academia Seneca. Just as President Tsai Ing-wen said, 2020 was a difficult year for so many around the world. But I'm honored that Taiwan could lend a hand in ways big and small. The Minister for Health, Senator Hon. Mary Azak says she's grateful to the Government of Taiwan for their continued support, especially in the fight against and the control of the coronavirus. As you have heard, we have the second strain here in St. Lucia, and we have to be even more vigilant than we were before. We have already opened up so that other healthcare facilities can come on board and assist us in this fight. And I believe that these test kits will go a long way in assisting the entire country to speed up the process in terms of testing for us to come up with faster results, to know quicker who is positive, so that we can then isolate people, put people in quarantine, and hopefully get this COVID-19 back under control. While reflecting on and expressing appreciation for Taiwan's continuous contributions to St. Lucia, the Prime Minister Hon. Alan Chastney says Taiwan has shown by example of what they've done in their country that COVID-19 can be defeated. We made an appeal to the citizens of St. Lucia to protect the vulnerable people in our society. If you're not going to do it for anyone else, keep a picture of somebody you love in your mind. And when you think it's a bit difficult to put your face mask on, do it. When you think it's over burdensome to wash your hands, do it. When you want to hug and kiss somebody, stay away and practice the social distancing. These are the sacrifices that we have to make. We must go through some pain to get some gain. So again, I want to remind everyone, we are in a war, a war that requires all of us to participate. And again, I want to thank the government and the people of Taiwan, in particular President Tsai, for her continued unwavering support to the development of our country. The Prime Minister highlights the rapid test kits will be incorporated, with the PCR tests currently being done on island, in the best way to build a stronger defence against the COVID-19 virus. From the Government Information Service, Helmeti Mark reporting.


she says a few days later, I see another dream. She says, I see another dream. In this dream, she's telling the story to Bishr ibn Sulayman, the companion of Imam al-Hadi. I see Maryam, the mother of Isa, she comes to me and she's walking with another woman, a noble woman. Her face is all iman. I ask Maryam, who is this? She says, this is Fatima al-Zahra, this is the best woman in the universe. And she tells me that remember in your first dream when Rasulullah married you to his grandson, Fatima is the grandmother of al-Askari, the man that you were married to in the dream. So she says, I went to Fatima and I began to complain to her in my dream. Why hasn't al-Askari come to me in my dream? Why has he neglected me? Just one dream and that's it? I fell in love with him. Why has he come? Fatima tells her in the dream the reason why al-Askari, my grandson hasn't come to you is because you're not a Muslim. Embrace Islam, only then he'll come to you. You're not a Muslim, he can't come. So she says, if I become Muslim, he'll come to me? Fatima says, yes. And if you become Muslim, if you say the Shahad detain, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala will be happy with you.  Isa will be happy with you. And Maryam, she's right there, she'll be happy with you. And Maryam says, yes. So she says, I saw no choice but to say Allah, Allah said, Muhammad Rasulullah, and I became a Muslim. She says, as soon as I became Muslim, Fatima hugged me and said, now from now on expect to see my grandson, al-Askari in your dream.


Hi everyone, Joe for jazzybyscasewrakes.com. Forgot to do the recap video for the, or the recap at the end of the mixer video for the 11 box football mixer. So, not bad at all.  Got the Anthony Richardson rookies and stars, or Justin Fields out of rookies and stars too. From CJ Stroud, Daring Mathis there as well. There you have it. And Nick L won that break. So, very nice. That's the recap. I'm Joe, and I'll see you next time for the next one. jazbyscasewrakes.com.


Hey everybody, welcome back to Magic Orthodoxy. My name is David and this is a deck review. Hey, today we're going to look at the Absinthe deck from Illusionist.com. Now the Absinthe deck was part of the prohibition box set that Illusionist released a while ago. The prohibition box set was a six-deck box set. It was all alcohol-based decks of cards. It all came in like a big wooden box. That wooden box, the six-deck box set, was limited to a 3,000 set run. And then since then Illusionist has released a few of those decks individually for people who wanted to pick them up and the Absinthe deck is one of those. Now if you don't know what prohibition was, prohibition in the United States, it was a nationwide constitutional ban on selling and making alcohol. It remained in place from 1920 to 1933. Sometimes it's called the dry age or the dry crusades. And it was a movement that was started by these rural kind of protestants and progressives. And so it was all mandated under the 18th amendment to the Constitution. And so later it became known as the Volstead Act. In a lot of places there was no bars. There was no places where you could get alcohol. And so the kind of alcohol movement kind of went underground. And there was like secret distilleries. And there was like tiny tiny cubby holes where you could go. Nationwide prohibition it ended with the ratification of the 21st amendment and it replaced the 18th amendment on December 5th in 1933. Now if you don't know what Absinthe is, Absinthe is called the Green Fairy Spirit. Spirit is just another way of saying alcohol. And it's been long since associated with the Bohemian lifestyle.  Absinthe is also portrayed in movie and film and book as being addictive and psychoactive and it's a hallucinogen. So it's often associated with like this green fairy that dances around when you drink it and you get drunk. The tuck case is all done in black and silver. It says Absinthe across the front and it says there is a different world waiting to be discovered only a sip away at the top. Very Bohemian, lots of vine work all throughout and it creates like this feeling like you're walking through like this mystical smoke-filled fairy jungle. It says premium playing cards down there and then there's really tiny words on this tuck case. Some of the which I can't even read with my glasses. It kind of looks like it was a printing, I don't know, faux pas or something. They just didn't notice how small some of this text was. In fact, there's really small text there on the top as well. It's very difficult to read. I know it says Absinthe right there. You got a green tuck seal which is reminiscent of the green feel that you're going to feel throughout the deck. The back design is the back design of the cards. Again, it looks kind of muted and muddy. I don't know if this is what they really wanted. It is what the back design looks like but it's just not as crisp and clean as the back design. This side says dare to indulge and this side says the illusionist playing card company. Down there at the bottom it does say that it's part of the prohibition box set and that is pretty much it for the tuck case. Let's take a look at these cards. Like all illusionist decks, these cards were printed from the United States playing card company and they do come on their famous infamous retail stock. They do have an air cushion finish and a modern embossing and if you'd like to learn more about stock cut or finish, you can click the link below in the description. The back design is very beautiful. There's a nice big A there for Absinthe and you can just see all the rich line work. It does look like a very old school, very old-fashioned style deck. It does really help carry that beautiful feel. You've got a micro thin border there on the edges and it is black but that's cool because the faces are black as well so you don't have any like slipping or showing when you have reverse cards. You also have some triangles there at the top and the bottom. It kind of looks like the all-seeing eye so you do have some kind of mystic symbols there and it does still carry that really cool haunting feeling that you would feel from drinking a bottle of Absinthe.  This is your ace of spades, nice big exploded spade pip. It doesn't have any words on it at all. It's just a nice clean intricate design of the spade. They're floating them. It's the black and it's very beautiful. So with that your Pips and Indicity cards are all going to be completely custom. You got a custom pip in the corner. You have custom fonts, custom Pips there in the center, all tied together to make a really cool looking deck. Your court cards are custom however they're similar from suit to suit so all your jacks look the same, all your queens look the same, and all your kings look the same.  So see you have green diamonds. With this deck you're going to get a couple of things. The first of which is you're going to get an ad card for the Illusionist Black Club. If you're cool you belong to it or if you're poor like me you don't. You're going to get two jokers very similar but a little different. One is the clean Joker that you can read. This is Absinthe down here. It says Joker at the top. It's kind of like a little tap that's probably pouring Absinthe. You can get the little Absinthe glass. Absinthe glasses are really small, very delicate. You only drink a tiny portion of it. And then the second Joker is blurry. So you know it kind of has that kind of haze, hey I'm drunk kind of feel but it might be a really cool gaff for a pirouette flourish. The other thing you're going to get is an ingredients card or a menu card for a drink called the Stardust. This is a drink that you can make with Absinthe and you have all the directions right here. The back design is the cool Starfield and so these would make neat collectibles. Alright so that's my deck review for the Absinthe deck. If you'd like to purchase your own you can head on down to Illusionist.com. As always recommend that you like this video just so other people can find it faster. We also recommend that you subscribe to this channel just to stay up to date on the latest cards and card magic. Now if you want to follow me on social media you can. I'm at facebook.com. Twitter.com. Instagram.com. Thanks, bye.


We're going to look at a graph of temperature, dew point, and relative humidity in State College, Pennsylvania from 0z on October 6, 2016, which is the time along the left side of the graph through 0z on October 7th, which is the time along the right side of the graph. The top portion here plots temperature, dew point, and relative humidity, and the scale for temperature and dew point is along the left side while the scale for relative humidity is along the right. So what relationships can we see from this graph? For starters, note that fog was reported in State College throughout much of the night, which means that net condensation was occurring. We would expect our relative humidity observation to be 100%, and indeed that was the case. You actually can't see the relative humidity trace through much of the night because it's right along the top of the graph. If relative humidity is 100%, that must mean that the temperature and dew point were equal, and we can see that's the case too. From about 4z through about 16z, the temperature and dew point traces were indistinguishable because they were equal. So through much of the night, the temperature and dew point were equal, relative humidity was 100%, net condensation occurred, and fog was reported. Now look at what happens after 16z. The dew point trace remains relatively flat, which means dew points remain roughly constant because the amount of water vapor in the air didn't change. But while that was happening, relative humidity plunged from near 100% down to less than 60% by 21z. Why did that happen? The air warmed up. Temperature kept climbing through the morning and the afternoon from the low 50s to near 70 degrees. With dew point remaining constant, the warming of the air caused the difference between temperature and dew point to grow, and relative humidity decreased. Note also that after 16z, fog was no longer reported because net evaporation began occurring as the air warmed up and relative humidity declined. After 21z, temperatures started to decline as evenings set in, and note that there was a corresponding increase in relative humidity even though dew points changed very little. The cooling of the air increased the relative humidity as the difference between temperature and dew point became smaller. The bottom line is that the amount of water vapor present changed very little throughout the daytime and yet relative humidity changed quite a bit from 100% to less than 60% because of changes in temperature. So relative humidity does not tell us how much water vapor is in the air, but it does tell us how close the temperature and dew point are to each other, which tells us how close we are to net condensation potentially occurring.


On-topic Eris, bobl sglu i fynd mewnent, mae'r ddefnyddio i'r toliadol ond Yrr Lyn Cynon, diolch i'r ddylch i'r ddylch i'r ddylch i'r ddylch i'r ddefnyddio i fynd mewnent, ond mae'n gwneud i'r ddylch i 40 oes ar y Falklands War, y ddefnyddio i'r ddylch i'r ddylch i ni i fwyaf o bydd technau. Dechreuch chi i bwysig y lluniau a'u mwyaf o'u cyhoedledd amser, yn awr i'r ddiffuithion ar gyfer ychydig. Stuart McMillan o'r debat o'r behalf o Graeme Dey, ym 7 mlynedd, Mr McMillan? I'm delivering the speech today on behalf of my colleague Graeme Dey, MSP, who is ill. I was privileged to be asked to deliver this speech today for Graeme, and I imagine that my role in the Scottish Parliament branch and also the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association might have been a factor in that. In 2013, I did visit the Falcon Islands on behalf of the Scottish Parliament to take part in a conference on the issue of self-determination for the Falcon Islands, something that Graeme touches upon in his speech. Any commemoration demands careful reflection on events, impacts and legacies, and one marking a 40th anniversary requires a particular focus. Many, if not most of us in this chamber, will have some recollection of the Falcon's conflict, and I'm grateful to those colleagues who supported the motion and are contributing this evening. However, a recent survey by Help for Heroes found that almost half of 18 to 34-year-olds did not know when the Falcon's War happened. Indeed, over a quarter of them had not even heard of it. Whilst, based on the age profile, that's perhaps not surprising, but it's important that we do not allow that conflict to join the Korean War and be felt by many of those who serve on it as a forgotten war. Veterans and their sacrifice cannot be forgotten. It's crucial that we remember both those who lost their lives and those who were left mentally and physically scarred by events 40 years ago. When we reflect in past conflicts, it can be easy to get caught up in dates, overall narratives and accounts of decision making of political leaders. However, one of my abiding personal memories as a young journalist at the time was of an infamous tabloid newspaper Front Page reporting the sinking of the Balgrano. That very much returned to the forefront of my mind when watching a recent documentary in the war, hearing a British naval veteran speak of his own mixed emotions when hearing of that event. Euphoria over a significant win for the side and the conflict immediately tempered by recognition that many fellow mariners had perished. It's essential in reflecting upon what unfolded in the South Atlantic. We focus on those individual stories and sacrifices on the front line. The first front line in the Falcons consisted of 32 local defence force volunteers and the navy personnel there at their point of invasion, none of whom had gone there expecting to see any action. Just 67 men, the Marine contingent known as the naval party 8901, showed a bravery and resistance that went unrecognised for too long. In a recent documentary Major Mike Norman, who led these men in a vastly under-resourced defence against an 800 strong landing party, described how certain of death he was. Many tabloid headlines at the time painted Norman and his men as cowards. Their efforts now acknowledged, however, quash any such claim. During the several hours of fighting, around 6,500 rounds of ammunition were discharged, casualties were inflicted and arms were eventually laid down only on the orders of the British Government. After being sent home, most of the marines immediately volunteered to head back and ended up there as part of the forces who had actually recaptured the islands. 4-5 commando, based out of a broth in my constituency, played a significant role in the Falcons, being among the very first fruits to part, Cabinet Secretary Keith Brown among them. 4-5 were to become known as the ympers due to the extreme miles that they had to march ymping in grim conditions on those small islands, 8,000 miles from home. 110 mile route of constant diversions and detours, including the whole of which everything that they had was carried on their backs. James Kelly, a young second lieutenant, talked of 44 days without fresh water, without a change of clothing, freezing cold, soaking wet with wind-chill temperatures well below zero. The marines saw ships being hit and sunk and friends and colleagues injured, and it must have been unimaginably hard on all involved, but there were to be tough heartbreaking experiences of those back home too. Theresa Davidson was just 25 when she lost her husband at Clark Mitchell of the Scots Guards on the final day of the Falcons conflict. He was one of eight Scots Guards to lose their lives that day. All of this is a reminder, Presiding Officer, that there is nothing glorious about war, but apart from the liberation of the islands and the sending of a clear message that the right to self-determination is to be cherished and protected, the Falcons were proved important in another way, re-evaluating previous perceptions of trauma. It was to become recognised that even after the effects of a short-term war had the power to linger for much longer than desired. The unpredictable nature of trauma can be brought on by grief, survivor's guilt or simply the inability to cope with the reality of life after war. As a result, too many Falcons veterans have been led into paths of alcoholism, drug abuse, homelessness, family breakdown and also crime. When you read the stories of Falcons veterans, the main takeaway is that for most not a day goes by without a memory or thought of the conflict. Individual decisions made during the war can still play on their minds with the only solution being to live with them and their consequences good or bad. Post-traumatic stress disorder PTSD was not recognised until 1987. Before then it was known that during the Second World War there was shell shock and during the Great War it was viewed as cowardice. There remains progress to be made. For many whose services there lies a fear that by disclosing a suspected mental health issue they are disclosing a weakness that may affect their future careers. That is why I wish to express my continued appreciation for the military charities and associations who provided necessary support and friendship needed to manage the powerful emotions experienced daily by their veterans. From any Falcons service, the effects of PTSD have taken years, sometimes decades, to manifest. Before PTSD received its recognition, veterans were shunned and unsupported to the point where the act of seeking help seemed out of the question. Take the example of the youngest Scot deployed in the Falcons at David Cwickshanks, aged 17, for whom joining the navy was a dream come true. It was not until 1999, 17 years after the Falcons war, that his struggle with PTSD and depression was picked up by a doctor in an unrelated consultation. Only then did he start to speak out about his personal struggles. Last November, it was fortunate to revisit RM Condor's Woodlands Garden of Remembrance, a point at memorial to the men who have lost their lives in various conflicts, including the Falcons. The garden's tranquil environment offers a focal point for the men of 4.5 commando and their relatives to reflect and remember. You cannot visit it and fail to be moved. It is a matter of record that the 255 British servicemen lost their lives in the Falcons, as well as, lest we forget, 649 Arsentynians. According to Royal British Legion figures, approximately 350 British Falcons veterans have taken their own lives since the conflict. Whilst it can be said that, in the subsequent decades since the Falcons war, there has been more cultural awareness to the seriousness of PTSD, it is still an issue that many struggle with. The expectation during the Falcons conflict was to get on with it and deal with it yourself, whatever it actually was. There can no longer be a stigma around asking for help, and act so simple yet, in some cases, the life changing. To conclude my contribution to this debate, I want to quote Ian Gardner, then commander of X-ray company, 4.5 commando. I see reflected in the war and I quote, we are all of us changed men. For many it was a pivotal event in their lives. The time before was innocence, while afterwards was a particular form of adulthood that not many ever see. In recognition of those words, this anniversary must serve as a reminder of the need, our collective responsibility to support those of our veterans whose service exacted at all, because they bear their physical and mental wounds every single day, not just during anniversaries of conflicts in which they sow action. Thank you very much, Mr McMillan. Thank you for stepping into the brief short notice. We now move to the open debate. I call First Jackson Carlaw to be followed by Sarah Boyack for around four minutes, Mr Carlaw. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it's a pleasure to contribute a few thoughts to this debate, 40 years since the UK's victory in Port Stanley in the end of the Falcons war. I thank Graham Day for tabling the motion. Wish him well. I thank Stuart McMillan for introducing it and associating myself really with everything that he had to say. I'm delighted to see the Scottish Parliament taking the time to commemorate again those lost in the war and the fight to ensure that the Falkland island is of British free and able to choose their future. I acknowledge and welcome Mr Brown's repeat performance this afternoon and, of course, his service to the Falklands in that conflict. Over the course of a 74-day war, 250 British troops were killed along with three islanders, and debates such as this and that of my colleague Sharon Dowey at the end of last month gave us the opportunity to remember those who gave their lives to protect the freedom of Falkland islanders. It's also a further opportunity to thank veterans for their service. As a result of that military campaign to protect the island and its people, Falkland islanders have had their right to self-determination upheld, guaranteed under the protection, the continuing protection of British forces South Atlantic islands, headquartered at RAF Mount Pleasant. The islanders' gratitude for the UK's intervention and continuing support is clear to see. They remain proud to be British, deeply affectionate and appreciative of the efforts of the UK during those dark weeks and months of sunglasses no longer required, Presiding Officer, and for the heroism and discipline of our military personnel. At an event in Parliament at the end of last month to commemorate those 40 years since the conflict, we had the opportunity to hear from the Falkland islands representative to the UK, Richard Hyslop, who spoke of the nation's progression from wool production and sheet rearing, expanding to tourism, fishing and the oil and gas industries. In the time since that war, an estimated doubling of the population of the islands. Now, whilst the victory signalled change for the islands themselves, huge consequences were also felt in defeated Argentina for where there it was the humiliating failure for the Argentine junta. Our victory at that time was pivotal in ridding Argentina of military junta rule and bringing more democracy to that nation. Presiding Officer, this conflict was the UK's first large-scale military engagement following the debacle of Suez in 1956. Our military was still lacking in confidence and standing wounded on the world stage. More widely, the US was suffering following the debacle of the Iranian hostage crisis rescue mission and the longer-term trauma of Vietnam. The West was no longer as confident or as effective in the eyes of many as a powerhouse that they had come to expect. The Falklands conflict reignited our resolve because it was a situation in which talk was clearly no longer enough and action had to be taken. To paraphrase Churchill, doing one's best was not enough. We had to do what was required. In the days that followed the invasion of the Falklands, there was a united front across the country, across the globe basically for the UK's military involvement. Most members of the European community at the time were coming out against Argentina's aggression as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Many other countries stood in support. Some took their own action by implementing sanctions, all in a united effort to ensure that this was not going to become a precedent and that we could defend Falkland Islanders' right to live their lives in their way. Those were considerations at the time that we did not know we could secure but actually managed to do so. On Tuesday, we officially reached 40 years since the end of the war and I was in my early 20s and I was not writing but I remember the daily BBC reports and I am acutely aware that as we meet today in the passage of time many members of this Parliament in fact really were not there to have any first-hand recollection of the event but we can't allow that sacrifice to be forgotten. One of the key things I think is that in the 40 years since the Falkland Islands remains unique, it was the last war to predate 24-hour rolling news. Thereby at the time that allowed the news flow to be limited and controlled by the UK government and military as well as being inevitably limited by the remoteness of the islands. Contrast this with the ongoing war in Ukraine where journalists are embedded within the major conflict zones reporting live at every stage. Public opinion was therefore far more managed in the Falklands, perhaps best illustrated by the famous Brian Hanrahan quote where he had to avoid the military censors with his eye counted them all out and counted them back. The existence of in-depth and committed coverage has changed this. Never again will it be the case that western government will send troops to a country whilst controlling the narrative and limiting the media which is only right. It's now the case that military campaigns will be widely reported with the media able to promote images and sometimes uncomfortable truths which influence the public's perception. This now performs a significant role in how any military conflict must be planned and managed. The Falklands war was the antithesis of this. We saw with the Americans in Vietnam how the contrary situation could fundamentally change the way that the public supported a war. It's now a fine line for governments to tread. This level of engagement by the media is something that I think is a healthy outcome of modern conflict. At the time of the war, I remember Mrs Thatcher addressing the Conservative conference in Scotland. Nobody thought she'd come. She came because there was a major event taking place in the Falklands and it was important for continuity to be seen to be happening here at home. That statecraft is something I've always admired. It's something gained. It's a trait both learned and shared irrespective of party. As the Falklands were invaded, Harold McMillan visited Mrs Thatcher to pass on his advice and counsel, while Mrs Thatcher did the same protonablair at the commencement of the Second Gulf War. Ultimately, as we approach 40 years since the victory in the Falklands, we should acknowledge the wider influence it had on the way military conflicts would subsequently be conducted and be proud and remain proud as a nation of our efforts in 1982 and our commitment to the Falkland Islands. It should never falter, whilst we acknowledge the progress that has been made with British support by the islands in the time since. Thank you very much. I agree a little bit more time for taking the return to mood lighting in your stride. With that, I move to Sarah Boyack to be followed by Christine Grahame for around four minutes, Ms Boyack. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to thank Grahame Day for his motion, because last month we had an excellent debate prompted by Sharon Dowey, but today it gives us just a little bit more time to reflect on the impact of the conflict on people, not just as numbers or as statistics, because for many, the impact of war, serving on the front line, stays with them throughout their lives.  While we celebrate this 40th anniversary, we also need to remember that it is an incredibly painful anniversary for many who lost a family member or the impact of the war that lives with them today. I want to reflect on the impact on veterans and how we support them, but also on the lives of those who live in the Falkland Islands and how we can retain and develop our links with them going forward. It was striking to see from Poppy Scotland in their briefing that even now, 40 years on, veterans are coming forward for the first time to seek support. That 40 years seems like a long time to us, but it is critical to support them. As was said in the speech from Graham Day, the knowledge that we have on the impact on veterans' lives is not new. Between 1916 and 1919, injured soldiers were treated in military psychiatric hospitals for PTSD, as we would call it now, but then it was called shell shock, and recent estimates show that up to 325,000 British soldiers may have suffered from shell shock as a result of the First World War. However, for too long, there was stigma for those who had to live with the aftermath of their service. Results of a 2018 research project from King's College London estimated the rate of PTSD amongst Duke A veterans of all conflicts to be 7.4 per cent. The rate of PTSD amongst the public is 4 per cent, something to reflect on. The evidence showed that the rate was even higher for veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. For those who had deployed to those conflicts, the rate of PTSD was 9 per cent, and those deployed to war zones in a combat row even higher. Many of them were predicted to develop a mental health condition. As highlighted in Graham Day's speech, it is important that we act. There are on-going impacts of veterans who are living with the aftermath of PTSD and need on-going support now, wherever they live, across Scotland. It is very welcome that the motion acknowledges the work of Poppy Scotland in providing life-saving services that they offer among other support for veterans from Poppy Scotland financial, housing, mental health and employment support. Veterans coming home from combat cannot be left behind by the country that they served, and we must challenge the stigma that they often face. Poppy Scotland fills the gap of under-provision, and the work of services is absolutely vital. Across the road from this Parliament, we have Whiteford House, the Scottish veterans' residences that provide supported housing for former members of the UK Armed Forces who are homeless or at risk of homeless, and their work is invaluable. It is also important—I want to finish with a few words—on the impact of the Falkland Islands for the islanders themselves, who were grateful for support, but they themselves needed to recover from the stress and the anxiety of armed conflict and from the unexploded bombs on their land. We have many links between the Falkland Islands and Scotland with some of the first settlers being from Scotland, and even the name came from Scots, and we have strong ties with the Scots Guard there. I am told that the dialect spoken of Falklands is actually a very unusual mix of Scots and Somerset. That makes islanders somewhat unique. They have 16 nationalities now living there, and the Falkland Islanders are keen to use the 40th anniversary, not just to commemorate their freedom and to thank those who served in the conflict, but also to show the world a modern Falklands. They have research institutes with Scotland and Tartic and Mediterranean academics. They have gotten 80 per cent return back to the islands from those who leave to go to university and only 1 per cent unemployment, so maybe something to learn there. For them, the state is also important in supporting islanders. There is support for people to enable them to go on holiday because of the costs. Welfare rates are very good. University places are funded with fees to enable students to come to study in the UK and then to enable them to go home. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary, let us remember both those who put their lives on the line, not just in the Falklands, but in subsequent military conflicts since then. Let us also reflect on the aspirations of the islanders, how we retain and develop our links. I welcome the commemorative services that will be held later this month, and let us think about who we develop our links, whether through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or through our academic or research links. It is a 40th anniversary and it is a celebration, and we need to think about the past, but also about who we move forward together. I congratulate Graham Day on securing this debate and the able delivery of his speech by Stuart McMillan. As you know, this is my second contribution in a short space of time in the debate about that war. I will therefore be some overlapping, but I am pleased that the debate focuses on the men and women who went to that war, some never to return. A war thousands of miles away over a territory that practically none of us had heard of until we heard the drumbeats of war. Was it necessary? Did it resolve the tensions and dispute over sovereignty once and for all? I will consider those questions later in my contribution. First, let me emphasise my regard for all service personnel who found themselves involved in that conflict, but especially those on the front line. My sincere sadness and regret for all the lives that were lost and for those who were injured both physically and mentally—the British, the Argentinians and the civilians—death and injury does not discriminate. I also recognise that the damage both physical and emotional endures with survivors to this day. I also recognise the professionalism and courage of our armed forces. The toll was this. Three Falkland Islanders died and total nine on four military personnel were killed in the conflict. Of those 255 were British military personnel, 649 were Argentinians. British forces reported that 775 were wounded in the war with 115 being captured between April and June. Meanwhile, 1,657 were reported wounded among Argentinians military personnel and more than 11,000 were captured. 40 years ago, as I travelled on the bus to my law studies, I recall how horrified I was to hear passengers in front of me hearing that we should, quote, bash the argys. Jingoism had a field day, fuelled in particular by the Sun newspaper, which took a bloodthirsty stance from the start, gambling that this would pay off in increased circulation. It did. It invited readers to sponsor Sidewinder Missiles and offered three, quote, sink the argys, quote, computer games. Splashed its front poster page with Will Smashham printed over pictures of Winston Churchill and a Bulldog, even urged the Government to reject and offer a peace talks with the Argentinian military scene with the headline, quote, stick it up your junta.  The junta sending young conscript infantry into battle, often unfed and lacking even basic equipment such as the proper footwear. I am glad that Jackson Carlaw referenced the press coverage because coverage, as we know, was highly censored. All the significant news, good or bad then, 40 years ago, was announced or leaked from London. Reports in the South Atlantic had the sour experience of hearing their news being broken on the world service. Reports were censored, delayed or occasionally lost. When relations between the press and the navy on board the Hermes were at their worst, Michael Nicholson of ITN and Peter Archer of the Press Association prefaced their bulletins with the rider that way they were being censored. That, itself, was censored. Now, there was, I believe, an opportunity to resolve the dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands by diplomacy. It might have failed, but it was not given enough time and space. And I know I was not alone in having grave concerns about launching into this war, nor indeed the way it was conducted. But then there was the sinking of General Balgrano, the Argentinian cruiser. Was it sailing to or out of the exclusion zone, it's still under dispute. But the retaliation days later, of course, came with the sinking of the HMS Sheffield off the coast of the Falkland Islands, killing 20 men. There was no going back after that.  Was diplomacy exhausted? I quote from a Times article. The British Government was aware of an Argentine threat to the Falkland Islands for almost a year before they were invaded close quotes. I return to the lives lost and damaged. They must not be forgotten—I have not forgotten them—but I have also not forgotten how the loss of those lives might have been prevented with intelligence and diplomacy being tested first and taken to its limits before putting our armed forces into conflict. However, if I may finish on this, the words of a Welsh gardener speaking earlier today who is aboard the Sergalahad, a troopship attacked by Argentine fighter jets on 8 June 1982, as it sat unprotected. The explosion on board the Sergalahad at Bluff Cove killed 48 men, including 32 Welsh gardens, and dozens of men were injured and some horribly burned. Asked whether he thought the war was worthwhile, he replied as a soldier would. Ours not to reason why, ours but to do or die. But as politicians it is incumbent on us with that loss of lives, loss of futures, the scars of injury and trauma and those who served. Even today, as sovereignty of the Falkland remains disputed, as politicians it is ours to reason why. I thank Graham Day for bringing today's debate forward and also my colleague Sharon Dowie for her recent Falklands war debate, and I wish Graham Day a speedy recovery. Today's motion specifically recognises the contribution of four or five commando based in our growth in my own north-east region. The unit has a proud history, taking part in the D-day landings of Sword Beach, the 78th anniversary of which we marked on Monday. In 1982 they were again in the thick of the fighting, most notably at the battle of the two sisters. One of the key engagements of the conflict that helped encircled Argentine forces at Port Stanley and ultimately in the war. But even before the battle had begun, four or five commando has shown what they were made of. The sinking of a container ship Atlantic conveyor saw the loss of almost all transport helicopters she was carrying. That meant four or five commando would have to march across East Falkland on foot, which they did, ymping 56 miles across inhospitable terrain in gruelling conditions whilst carrying 80lb loads. When the battle was joined, they were the central force of a three-pronged attack on the heights of Port Stanley. The attack on the two sisters' mountain began on the night of 11 June and carried on throughout the evening.  They pressed the attack aided by accurate artillery fire from both 29 commando and HMS Glamorgan and by dawn the mountain was in British hands. But four Royal Marines had lost their lives and 17 had been wounded. On the opposing side, 20 Argentine troops had been killed, a sober reminder of the cost of war. Thankfully, the war would be over soon. Within days, the Argentine forces had surrendered and British forces had liberated Port Stanley. Today, the Falklands is a peaceful and prosperous place. Tourism is increasing, the islanders continue to develop their own distinctive culture and they make their own democratic decisions, all possible through the sacrifices of Britain's armed forces. Many of those sacrifices, those veterans that the Falklands made, are still with them, both physical and mental wounds. As is the case for veterans of all conflicts. I have the honour of meeting many such veterans, both because of the strong military community in Tayside and in my role as chair of the cross-party group on the armed forces and veterans community. In closing, let me say that, whilst it is important that we remember the events of 40 years ago, it is just as important, if not more so, that we continue to support the brave men and women who still bear the scars of that conflict. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Golden. I now call Keith Brown to respond to the debate, cabinet secretary, for around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks also to Graham Day, my predecessor as Minister for Veterans for Securing this member's debate. As Maurice Golden just said, I'm sure we all wish him a speedy recovery. The debate marks the 40th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands and the end of the Falkland war. As Jackson Carlaw said, it's strange to think of that being 40 years ago. As I said last week, we were then closer to the Second World War than we are now to the Falklands war. It's also interesting that, at that time, my experience was as a signaler, which meant that I was lucky enough to have a radio, which was a high frequency radio, which meant that I could hear the Scotland World Cup matches, which most people couldn't. Unfortunately, this year, I'm not able to hear or see the Scotland World Cup team, because they won't be there. I'm sure that things have changed in the intervening period. The debate has also changed, I think, from the one that we held most recently with Charred and Dewey. As far as Jackson Carlaw in particular has focused quite rightly on the international implications and some of the way that states have responded to the Falklands war. I'll come back to that in a second. First of all, to say that he mentioned the principle of self-determination. I think that that's a very important principle. It's a principle that I think is worth fighting for, although, of course, the debates will continue as to how the Falklands war came about in the first place, as Christine Grahame has mentioned. Self-determination itself is a very important principle. As we near the 40th anniversary, there are a number of upcoming events and activities that will provide all of us with a chance to consider the lasting impact of the conflict. I look forward to attending Robert Sleidgen's event at the national memorial arboretum in Staffordshire to mark the official anniversary next week. Just to come back to another point that Jackson Carlaw made, the rest of my contribution will focus rightly on what Graham Day wanted us to focus on in terms of his speech, which was about the impact on veterans. Just to go back to the point about, if you like, states and international states people, the Prime Minister will also come to those events next week. He's also said in the last day or two that he will, if he gets the opportunity, go down to the Falkland islands. Jackson Carlaw mentioned how important it was for, I think, it was Margaret Thatcher to get advice from Harold MacMillan and a couple of other examples of that kind. I wouldn't refute that, but getting advice in those situations is obviously very important. To come back to Graham Day's speech, I think that a really important piece of advice is to know about the impact that war itself has on those who are asked to go and fight, the veterans and the people who don't come back from wars. For my part, I'm more than happy to contribute to enhancing the knowledge of the Prime Minister if he wants to discuss that either next week or in the Falkland islands or any other time, because I think that it's extremely important that people that may have the responsibility of sending people to war have a full understanding of the impact. That's what Graham Day has tried to do in terms of his speech. I should mention, just briefly, because Maurice Golden and others mentioned the memorial garden at Condor Barracks. Just to mention the four people in my troop, as I did last week, who died and didn't come back. Sergeant Bob Lee Ring, who was a sergeant who had a wife and family. Corporal Fitton, Corporal Uren, and Marine Phillips, same age, same rank, same first name as me, who, at 19 years old, never returned from the Falkland islands. That was the real impact for those families to the four people that I just mentioned. Those were the guys in my troop. There were other guys in 4-5 Commando and many others as well, but those are the ones that I perhaps knew best. I should say that I'm also delighted to see that we, the Scottish Government, have been able to partner with Legion Scotland and Poppy Scotland, as is mentioned by Sarah Boyack, to establish a Scottish national event here in Edinburgh on 18 June, which will provide the people of Scotland with an opportunity to commemorate the anniversary. To coincide with that event, Poppy Scotland is delivering a wider learning programme. The point was made last week and this week about people being aware of it, but people not being aware of the Falkland Islands. That learning programme and the package of resources to schools across the country to allow young people to learn more about the conflict, as well as highlighting the role of the armed forces today, how we can support them and their families, is very important. It's important that we also acknowledge the lasting impact that Graham Day has tried to pass on to us and that the experiences of work can have on some members of the armed forces community, and we continue to work to address that. Many veterans of the Falklands still struggle with physical or mental scars or have faced hardships in the years afterwards. Veterans from this particular conflict served at a time when there was a lack of knowledge and education about mental health symptoms. There was also a huge amount of stigma associated with mental health issues. If I could just mention the point that was made in Graham Day's speech about the coverage, the absolutely appalling coverage of the guys who were down there at the time when the war broke out, who fought extremely bravely, but were then ordered, rightly, in the face of massively superior enemy forces to lay down their arms. To see them described by one tabled newspaper as cowards was absolutely appalling. The fact that people thousands of miles away from a theatre of conflict feel able to cast judgment on people who have fought in that circumstance and call them cowards is appalling. I hope that some of the media coverage will have learned from that kind of coverage. Jackson Carlaw mentioned quite rightly some of the ways in which the media has changed over time and the healthy engagement of the media in conflicts. Of course, we also have the reverse of that. If you look at Putin just now using his media to censor things and also prevent a very favourable account of why the Russians are wrongly illegally in Ukraine. So it can work both ways, but it's a very important point that's made about the change in nature of media. I'm delighted that we've touched on and I do appreciate that the passage of time has changed with media coverage, but would he congratulate those journalists that are out currently in Ukraine that they're not dodging the truth? I think that that's very well put, and I think that you have to remember when you see people like that, Clive, Mary and various other people, that they are in real danger in those circumstances. Just to go back briefly to that point about the way that the people that were currently there, the marine detachment that was there in the Falklands at the time, have been portrayed. I don't think that the people that made those comments, because the editor of that particular newspaper was interviewed about this recently, has no understanding of the impact that kind of comment has on the lives of veterans and people that served in the Falklands. Menderframe, of course, chose to go right back down and fight again as soon as they returned to the UK. And also just to mention that some of the journalists at the time, like Ian Bruce, a fantastic journalist, again put themselves in harm's way to try and get as much of the truth as they were able to get back to their audience. We are also trying to continue to campaign to address the stigma experienced by veterans and their families. The campaign led by CME will address negative views and promote the positive images of veterans contributing as employees, volunteers, blue light officers, clinicians, carers and community representatives. Over a number of years, we have supported veterans and their families with mental health needs through the innovative work of veterans' first point and combat stress. We funded both organisations to provide specific mental health services for veterans and their families and are continuing to fund both of those specialist providers this year. Combat stress will receive £1.4 million to provide a Scotland-wide veteran mental health service, and combat stress will also provide a 24-hour telephone advice service, recognising that not all veterans are comfortable with online services. I know that for older veterans, accessibility to services is really important, and combat stress recognised that need and they have recently opened two new bases, one in Glasgow and the other in Edinburgh. We have also agreed to continue funding the six existing veterans' first point providers. They will receive £666,000 to be matched funded by their local health boards. That will enable veterans to access an NHS service in their community, which I know is appreciated by many service users. Veterans of the Falklands signals are still coming forward to seek help and use those services for the first time to this day. Over 68 Falklands veterans have requested support for combat stress over the last year alone. As such, I would just like to finish by expressing my gratitude to the close-knit charity sector that we have here in Scotland. I am sure that I speak for all here today when I say that I am continually impressed by the level and the quality of support that they provide to our ex-service personnel and their families, and I extend my heartfelt thanks to everyone who supports those charities in whatever way they can. I would ask members if they themselves are able to participate in the remaining events to mark the 40th anniversary, or at least to encourage others. That would be gratefully appreciated. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, that concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of Parliament.