Wow!   Oh, welcome back to Exotic Wine Travel. I am your host, Matthew Warke. Hello, I'm Sharon Tan. Welcome back to the show. We are going to do a tasting video. It's been a while since we did a tasting video together. We are excited. Sorry about my hair. Still crazy. We're still in lockdown, but salon's open in a week. So I'm excited. Congratulations. We're tasting through a wine club that we actually love. So an Italian wine club called Roscioli.  They work with vineyards that are only farming organically, biodynamically. We really love the club, right? Exactly. Because it comes with an educative aspect as well. Because once in a while, they introduce grapes and producers that we never heard of, never even read about. So that's very exciting. At the same time, they also have some classic producers that we are more or less familiar with and it's nice to revisit some of their portfolio. I really love them because they're small producers. I love Italian wines. Italian wines can be intimidating if you want to try new things. Because of all the producers, all the different grape varieties, but they hand select some good stuff. And they give a lot of education on it, right? That's what you like about them. They also have a lot of videos on their website as well where they show the farming process or they show the people behind the wine. So there's a very intimate aspect to it as well. They have videos too where the semeliers tasting the wines like we're doing. Just so you guys know, we are affiliates of this wine club. But we get approached all the time by wine clubs. I have to turn almost all of them down. Last year, though, they sent me a box of six wines. And I was just completely shocked by the quantity and the diversity and the quality. They sent me six wines last time. I like five a lot. One I thought was interesting. I didn't enjoy as much. So we're going to taste through some today. This is the only wine club that we work with right now. Yeah, this is the only one. And like I said, this is the wine club we wish we would start. I love Italian wines. This box was so exciting when it got sent to me because there's some producers that I know. And then there's some producers I don't know, some grapes I know, some just real interesting stuff. You ready to get started? What do you want to taste? Sparkling? Which one? There's two sparklings. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. This one, OK. So we have the French. This is actually very cool. This is the Sola Uva French Accorta Dosagia Zero, which is a Brut Natour. This is a Blanc de Blancs Chardonnay. This is very cool. I'm glad that you chose this because you love champagne. You're hard on Blanc de Blancs and you're hard on Brut Natour. You don't think that people do it very well, right? Why do you think that people don't do Brut Natour very well? Lack of balance, generally. It's just lack of balance. I know having a Brut Natour is very charming, right? You don't add anything else to it. Whatever RS that's left from fermentation, you use it to balance the wine. But it's not always the case, darling. A lot of time, the acidity is too striking. It's just it's just not a good idea. The cool thing for those of you that don't know how classical method sparkling is made, what they do is they make a still wine, just like you would have a normal dry wine. Then what they have to do is add some sugar and yeast to start a second fermentation in the bottle.  They sometimes put a little bit of sugar back in and then cork it and then it's ready to go to the market. The cool thing is Brut Natour means the second time they don't add any sugar. And what's cool is in champagne method wines, they usually add cane sugar. This producer only adds its own grape must, only grape sugar from the grapes that he grows. So I'm ready to get started on this. There we go. Okay, let's get into the shall we. 100% Chardonnay. I did a little research on all these bottles before I opened them. This spent a whopping 36 months on the lead. So let's get into, well, after the bubbles die. They're gonna see the pressure is quite. Shareen love champagne. So I'm excited that she's gonna be very critical about this. We're gonna be very honest about these wines. What's cool is in Rusholi, there's three tiers. There's kind of a basic tier, which as you're gonna see right here, these are lower priced wines, even though they're still great. The second tier, then they have an expensive collector tier, but all the wines are good. So this is from the mid-range tier, basically. What do we got here? Lemony, Parry, nice on the nose, very nice on the nose. Still, you know, Italy's the number one market for sparkling wine in the world, actually, by volume. This doesn't have a bunch of yeasty champagne-y notes. It's quite ortholytic, but it's not too much. Yeah, but it's got this nice, I guess, the age notes. When you have champagne, they have all the cuvées from different vintages that can blend at the age notes. Really clear, precise fruit, pear, lemon, white peach. Let's give this a go. It's slightly floral as well, very slightly. Nice, small beater bubbles. Doesn't have the richness and the complexity of like a champagne to blonks, but very enjoyable, what do you think? I like the balance here. It's really, really refreshing, very good level of acidity, and it's got sweetness from the fruit as well. The texture is not as soft as I would like, but in terms of the taste, I really like it. Sharp. What you're gonna get from blonk to blonks, which means basically a white wine from white grapes. This is from Chardonnay. Lots of acidity, sharpness. This is a delicious bottle of bubbles. Really delicious. It's not a super complex, profound bottle of champagne, but in the French Accord style, and this kind of methodical classical, I think it's pretty well done. Anything else that you wanna add on this? No, I agree 100% with it, I'm gonna taste a lot. I mean, I'm pretty much, I'm saying this is not champagne, so don't expect champagne, but a good, very good sparkler. I'm in the 90-point range of this. Do you think it's the quality is that good? I'm with you. Oh, and you're tough too, so. It's linear, it's very linear, but at the same time, again, for blonk natural is very balanced. Nice. Let's move on, shall we? Good job. Good job on the first selection of bubbles. They also sent us a Reisling Method Ancestral Sparkler, so I'm excited to try that. Let's try a red, what do you wanna try for red? Oh. Let's do this. Oh, okay, wow. This is a very, very well-known producer, the Le Ragne. This is the Trancone Toscana Rosa 2016. This is 100% San Giovese, this producer knows Brunello, does Brunello very well. This is a great example. I think what you need to do is you pick wines from great producers, you pick great producers and you kind of buy their base-level wines, right? Now, while I open this, you wanna talk about a wine that we opened last night, actually? Yeah, so I've never heard of this producers, have you? No. Yeah, so we tasted this last night, again.  This bottle exemplifies what Barbera can be. It's very fruity, it's very generous on the palate, very good texture, but yeah, at the same time, Barbera, what do you expect, just amazing, crispy, really fresh acidity. Let's retaste this again, because we tasted last night. I love it. I picked it last night because I thought it was gonna be, kind of, it was in there basic, I thought it was gonna be simple, just a touch, just a touch, kind of basic entry-level wine, and it turned out to be really good. Ritzy is the producer, Barbera de Elba 2017. The producer is actually in the, I think, Trezzo, which is actually one of the talents allowed in Barberesco. I don't see, oh no, you're right. Trezzo, okay, so let's give this, let's give this a go again, we already tasted this, but I loved it. And I think I like about Barbera, it takes a little bit of shriveled grapes really well, and it also takes on open really well, so over here you smell this really nice toastiness from the Olga, a little bit more like hazelnut, chestnut just sort of nose, do you get that? For me, it's got all the Piedmontese flair, like it's, you got blackberries, dried cranberries, hazelnuts, a little bit of earthiness. I think you love Barbera, right? I love it. The way I would summarize Barbera is generous, without excess weight and very bright acidity. Barbera, Barbera, right? Go on, I'm just gonna drink this. So anyways, I thought this was excellent. I have this written down on my notes as 90 plus. I think Barbera is just a fantastic food-friendly grape. It's like the San Giovese of Piedmontese basically. This is the type of wines that most of the locals are drinking, not the Barolos, not the Barberescos. This is, Sorry. If you like it that much, huh? I love it, I love it. Really soft, nice handling. I know I'm the scorer, but what kind of? For me? Yes. Definitely more than 90, I would say 91. 91 plus, even. Oh, you're higher than me. I think there is aging potential in this wine. I mean, you're not expecting a lot more from Barbera. I like it fresh, I like the fruitiness, but okay, I'd better stop off now. Anyway, so here we go. We have the Le Ranier, the Troncone. Tuscana Russo 2016 was an extraordinary vintage in Tuscany. I am, you know, from past episodes, I love San Giovese. So I'm, oh, sorry about that. So I am really looking forward to tasting this. Anything else that you wanna add on this? I do, I find the label interesting and even for me as well, knowing wine, right? As a typical consumer, if I go into a shop and I don't know anything about this wine, it's quite difficult for me to pick up a wine that looks like this because of the label. It tells me that it's probably a small producer, could be a little bit rustic, yada yada. So I think that's the virtual of Wine Club as well. It gives you the opportunity to get out of your comfort zone and show you wines with a certain level of, or trust, because you already trust a wine club, so you would taste the wine. This is true San Giovese color. Some of the wines in the South Tuskegee Cantee Classical have more low Cabernet blended into light color. You've got already kind of a brownish rim. You can see through it, almost peanut water, like in color, right? Like an old rule. What do you think on the nose?  No, I'm sorry. Oh, you don't like it? I don't. Are you like, are you like it? No, I'm sorry. Oh, you don't like it? I don't. I actually like it a lot more right now. You like it? You didn't like it at first. Well, that's the thing, right? It's always difficult when you just open a pop, open a bottle and then just taste it and smell it immediately. And I appreciate this oxidative style during fermentation. It's giving a lot more complexity. So what's with these wines? I happened last time in the Wine Club. I didn't like some of the two at first, but then after time I liked them a lot. That's why every time you have the opportunity, it's always nice to really enjoy and discuss and drink through the bottle of wine. For me, although I have to say, I'm about 89 out of 100 on this point. I think it's really good. Step one, I want with food. Doesn't have the oath to kind of push past 90, but I still think it's very good. So I think a nice, interesting little selection, right? Yes, and I think this is what's interesting as well. It creates dialogue between the both of us. I'm looking forward to it. This is cool. We're not gonna taste these now. We're gonna have to look for our article. They said, I didn't want to pick wines. I knew that I was glad that we were disagreed on this because there's a couple wines here. I know I'm gonna like like the Domino and Neck Eye. This is 100% Friulano. This is macerated for 60 to 90 days. I love this wine. I know this producer, Friulio Venizia Giulia. I'm super excited to taste it. They also said it's a Piero Busso, Mondino Barbaresco from 2016. 16 is also an extraordinary vintage in Piamante. I know I'd love this, but this kind of wine needs a lot of time to sit there and evolve. Do you know this producer? No, but it's supposed to be very good. So if you know them, put the link in the description box. Plus this Riesling from Umbria. I'm so excited. Methodist as well. So I don't know, guys, if you want, you can check out our link. You can get one cool thing too, by the way. These are not inexpensive wines. I was so shocked when I saw French Accortes usually roll in. I don't know what this wine is. Roll in the 30, 40 euro range. The Damien, I know this is a 40 to 50 euro wine. Barbaresco these days, at least a kind of 40 euro wine. So these are really high quality wines. I'll put our affiliate link in the description box in the discount code. You can get 10% off if you want to pick these wines. They kind of ship all over the world, which is kind of cool. Ah, Italian wines. So guys, if you like this video, check out the wine club, and please subscribe to our YouTube channel, Exotic Wine Travel. We will see you in the next episode. Ah!


In this version of the widget, we've made setting the metadata of the image a bit easier. For the width and height, you can type the decimal numbers you want, use the sliders, or type the binary as you did before. It's useful to be able to change these things quickly to see the effects on the image. Notice when you change the data by typing or using sliders, the binary data changes and the image canvas reflects the changes.  To see what it does, let's set bits per pixel to one, which is what we had for black and white images before, and let's paste in a familiar black and white image. In order for a pixel to have a range of colors, it seems logical that we will need several or many bits to represent the color of each pixel. The bits per pixel setting in the metadata tells the widget how many bits it should use to calculate the color of a pixel. You can see if I change the bits per pixel setting, the widget will interpret the bits differently, and you'll see some colors start to appear. Of course, the binary data for this image was written for a black and white image with one bit per pixel. But if we change how that data is interpreted by increasing the bits per pixel that the widget is expecting to see, the image gets garbled. Let's start over and try to get the hang of using color in digital images. I'm going to make a very small image so that we can really look at what's happening with the pixels. So I'm going to set the width to four and the height to two. Now, let's look at how RGB colors work with this tool. As you know, for color images, each pixel is actually a combination of red, green, and blue light. If we want to represent that in binary, the least we can do is allocate three bits for each pixel, one bit each for the red, green, and blue values. I can use the slider to set the number of bits per pixel I want to use to render the image. So I'm going to set the bits per pixel to three. So now, with three bits per pixel set, it means I can control the amount of red, green, and blue light that goes into each pixel. As before, if I turn all the lights off, I will get the color black. And if I turn all the lights on, I get white. Since I have one bit of control for each of the red, green, or blue lights, I can turn them on and off individually. So if I want a red pixel, I can turn on the red light and turn the green and blue lights off. So that's red on, green off, and blue off, 1, 0, 0. And presto, I get a red pixel. Now you keep going and create a green and a blue pixel. Notice that when we have three bits per pixel, the first bit controls the red light, the second controls the green light, and the third controls the blue light, R, G, B. Now it gets interesting. What happens if we mix the lights? Let's see what happens if we turn on the red light and blue light and leave the green light off on the same pixel. Before I type it, make a mental prediction. What color do you think we'll get if we mix red and blue? Think about it for a second. All right, ready? Here we go. Red on, green off, blue on. It made pink! Is that what you were predicting? I'm guessing that you thought we might get purple. This is one of the key differences between mixing light and mixing paint. It's actually the opposite physical process. When you mix a lot of paint together, the color gets darker and darker. When you mix a lot of light together, the color gets brighter and brighter. It can take some getting used to, but you'll get the hang of it. With only three bits, we know that I can only combine them eight different ways. So with three bits, only eight colors are possible. Now you keep going and finish the remaining two colors.


In a lot of the Ulversity Lessons about Health, you're going to see this term used quite a lot. Dowy. And it means something, you've probably already seen this, disability-adjusted life years. And what does that mean? Well, disability-adjusted life years are a measure of the health of a group of people or maybe the health of an individual, but generally it's for groups. And this is an indicator of how the health in a country is doing. And what it does is it takes a look at the health of a group of people and it basically puts it onto a lifeline. So how about we make a lifeline here? We'll start with a healthy life being in blue. So let's say our person is born and they're healthy for a couple of years here. Then they have some sickness for a while. So maybe they're sick here. And then they're healthy again for a little while.     So here we've got another little healthy bit. And here another little healthy bit.  And let's imagine for the sake of argument that this back here is their life expectancy. So they were meant to make it to let's say 65 years in the country and society that they were in. So they're born here and they had these 65 years of life. But in reality they only made it to let's say this is 50. So immediately the math of Dali is going to count all of these years here as zeros. Or it's going to count them just not count them as a part of the healthy life span of this person. Then they're going to go back and take a look at these points in the calendar and the points in this person's life where they were sick. And they're going to give each one of those sicknesses a sort of a grade. And everything with Dali and it's sort of opposite which is Qali. Everything gets something that's kind of a one or a zero or somewhere in between. So let's say each one of these gets like a .5 for example. Many of them will probably get something like maybe a .7 or a .3. There's going to be lots of different numbers and they're a little bit deeper and more complicated than that. But what will happen is then these numbers will all be taken together. So all of these incidences of illness and then this incident of death will be taken together and added up into a big number. This number is the disability adjusted life years. And this is basically a count of how many life years someone lost to sickness or illness. Or to death actually as well. So of this 65 years how many years do people in a society actually really get in which they are healthy or how many are they losing to a disease. And this is actually really just a count of how much are we losing. Now one of the most amazing things about this entire topic is when you start taking a look at how much life people out there in the world are actually losing. So a study in 2000 that came out in 2005 was partially run by the WHO is one of the ones that you'll see quoted quite a lot in the current literature. And at that time the population of Africa was 655 million for Sub-Saharan Africa. And at that time the annual daily loss equals and be ready for this 358 million years. So for each year of life all the people in Africa are actually losing almost half of one in a way.  So you think about that, that is a really staggering number. And the question is where does this come from? Well it comes from sickness, it comes from things like malaria. One of the really big causes is HIV because it has a very high dally score. It really takes a lot out of you. You also have TB. We've talked about these in other lessons but you have a number of other things. You also have things like hookworm, have anemia.  So each year the entire continent of Africa is not able to produce, it's not able to live as much as they would if they were more healthy. And how much are they less able to live? Well this is kind of a hard number to imagine so I try to kind of quantify it. So I took this 358 million and I divided it out over 80 year lifespan. So if you were a healthy 80 year old then you would actually be able to live 400, 4.5 million lifespans. That's 4.5 healthy full 80 year lives are being lost in Africa and sub-Saharan Africa each year. Isn't that, that's really shocking actually. It's so shocking also when you think about it as being the population of a country like Ireland about the size of Ireland. So that is an incredible amount of productivity, that is an incredible amount of happiness, that's an incredible amount of just good days for people that they're just losing because they're not healthy. Now if you take a look at it on the global scale this is where it gets even more crazy. The same study found that 1.5 billion dallas are lost worldwide. Now if you take that and do the same math that I just did that's 19 million 80 year lifetimes. That is just a lot and if you kind of take a look at some populations of a few countries and you add them up that is actually the population of Sweden and Haiti combined. So if you were just to take those people and just wipe them off the earth that would be and actually if they were to live 80 year lifetimes which people in Haiti and Sweden don't do yet if you were to take those 80 year lifetimes and wipe them out that is the loss of life that's happening around the world every year. So that kind of hammers home I think some of the important aspects of Dali and why it is an important number. We are going to be talking more about Dali and lots of other things here in future lessons at alversity.org.


Our sixth group is on the topic of billiards with a twist. So the advisor is Jaidev Athraya, and the three presenters are Nicholas Cecil, Thibaut Langley, and Michael Ouijaia. Okay, so we're presenting billiards with a twist. Wrong direction. So we first started with billiards in the square. So this is where you have a physically ideal billiard table where there's no friction, there's no gravity, and collisions are perfectly elastic. And you start with a billiard ball with a known position and velocity and wonder what happens over time. It turns out that if the slope of the line is rational, the orbit of that billiard ball is periodic. It'll repeat eventually. And if the slope is irrational, it won't repeat. And in fact, in the irrational case, you find that the collision points are dense and equidistributed around the square. So we moved to considering what happens in a circle. But the twist is that instead of bouncing in the normal physical sense, you hit the billiard ball with the transform one over z.  Do you get the same results on periodicity or do you get density, that kind of thing? So to explain our notation, when the point is on the disc or when it's on the unit circle, you can just describe it with theta and alpha where theta is the angle from the horizontal of the position and alpha is the angle from the horizontal of the velocity. So that's what that diagram here shows. And the idea is the impact point in the first quadrant is the first thing that happens and then the one over z transform moves you down to the impact point in the second, sorry, in the fourth quadrant and then it flows across the circle. And these are the results, what happens to your initial point in terms of theta and alpha. So we started with a simple case, the radial case, where the billiard ball starts in the center and moves radially. And as you can see, the billiard ball eventually ends up just where it started with the same velocity. And that means it's periodic and it's periodic for any angle. So then we moved to a more general case where you don't know at the beginning where you start and what your velocity is. It could be anywhere. And so it turns out that this creates a relatively simple geometric problem that you can solve where the billiard ball end up after it transforms and flows across the circle along its velocity. And some simple calculations show that you get this rule and that turns out to be an affine map. Which is kind of nice because we start with this weird system. You don't know what's going to happen. And it turns out to be this relatively nice equation. So, okay. So we can get just the solution to the evolution by brute force matrix calculation. But actually I hate calculation so I will show you how you can get this without any calculation. And just some geometry. So first we just rewrite our system in this form. And what you can see is that there are two parts in my evolution. First part I just make a symmetry with respect to y-axis. As second part I get just a rotation of angle to alpha n minus theta n. So and it's the same evolution for speed and position. So why is it useful? So let us imagine that, okay, I start with this. And this system says that first I make a symmetry. Okay, sorry, symmetry with respect to y-axis. And then I just make a rotation with the angle. But not to understand what happens, I will do something weird. Is that I will just go to the other side of the board and oh imagine it's transparent and I can just see. What I see is that the next position is here. And what you get is just a rotation of angle to alpha minus theta. And also note that in real life the difference of angle between speed and position is just minus like the opposite of what we had before. But no, because I've gone to the other side of the board is just exactly the same than before. So yeah, because maybe you're not really convinced with this, get some pictures. And so I just start with some random initial position and speed. And here is the evolution if you're always in the same side of your board.  And here is what I see on the right when I just, each time I just change side of the board and look at what happens. And oh, you just see a rotation on the right side. So, yeah, this is basically why you are like, the rotation part is this part like, it's what you get if you have a rotation, okay. And the word term with the minus one to the power n is just like, okay, when we, when n is an odd number I just also have a symmetry and I wanna have also pi here. So I try to have a formula for saying that, okay, for even numbers I just get a rotation and for odd number I also have a symmetry. And the same thing for the speed which explains like, okay, it looks pretty complicated but it's just a rotation composed with a symmetry. So, okay, now we can try to figure out what are the dynamical properties of our system. And actually, because it's like just a rotation within some, sometimes a symmetry, we just have the same, basically, the same characterization of periodic orbits. Periodic orbits is just when the angle of the rotation over pi is a rational number. So actually we can even figure out and compute the period but I think I don't have time to explain because like, got other things to do but actually it's not really easy but you can compute and figure out what is the period. So now we just turn to the case in which the angle of rotation over pi is not rational. And so the result, if we adjust a rotation would be my orbit is dense on the circle and even equidistributes. And actually the same results stands here basically because you can just look at the two sequence theta2n and theta2n plus one and see that you just got rotation and so the density and equidistribution still stands. Okay but now we can try to look at the actual trajectory because for the moment we just have looked at the deposition in which the ball hits the boundary but we can try to draw the actual trajectory and ask for example whether the trajectory would be dense in the interior of the unit disk. Okay that is my question, that is your answer, it's no. And it's quite easy to see that just because of this is that I don't know if you remember how we compute the next position but we had something like this and the angle beta here was just theta minus alpha and because at minus one it's just the same in the evolution you always have the same angle here which means that basically your trajectory is contained between two circles. So now here is the new answer, is that okay but is the actual trajectory dense between these two circles and here is the answer, this time is yes and how to see that is like okay, sorry. Yeah yeah okay I'll just conclude like. Okay here I take one random point between these two circles and draw an epsilon neighborhood and I'm like oh what are the trajectory for which I can just go into the epsilon neighborhood and so here in the right part of the circle is one like if I bounce in the right part I'm sure because of the drawing that I will go into the epsilon neighborhood and because my orbit is dense in the circle I'm sure that I will go there. So basically I got density. So yes we want to thank Jayadev for his advice and I will just conclude by saying that sometimes it can be helpful to see a program from the other side of the world. Thanks.


So on Monday, we talked about Lauren Boebert's vile and disgustingly Islamophobic remarks about Ilhan Omar, and afterwards something really interesting happened that kind of caught me off guard. One of Lauren Boebert's colleagues in the Republican Party actually publicly condemned what she had to say. Now it was a soft denunciation, but nonetheless it was still a denunciation, which is much appreciated given how vile her statement was. So in a CNN appearance, Nancy May said this, I have time after time condemned my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for racist tropes and remarks that I find disgusting and this is no different than any others. Now is she both-sides-ing it? Yes. Both sides are not equal here. Is she very tepidly criticizing Lauren Boebert? Does she have the kid gloves on? Yeah, she does. But you know what? I'll take it. It's better than nothing because to just allow this to stand, that really is egregious. It's a new low, you know, for modern American politics. And what we need to do is make these sorts of comments socially unacceptable again. And the way that you do that is by calling them out, denouncing them. Now even though this was a very gentle criticism of Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Green took a fence to it and she took to Twitter to denounce Nancy Mace's denunciation of Lauren Boebert saying, Nancy Mace is the trash in the GOP conference, never attacked by Democrats or Rhinos. Same thing because she is not conservative. She's pro-abort. Mace, you can back off of Lauren Boebert or just go hang out with your real gal pals, the Jihad Squad. You're out of your league. Now she is using the incorrect version of your. It should be you are. Therefore there should be an apostrophe between the you and the R and an E at the end. But Nancy Mace points this out. She corrects her with the correct version and says, while I'm correcting you, I'm a pro-life fiscal conservative who was attacked by the left all weekend, as I often am. And I defied China while in Taiwan. What I'm not is a religious bigot or racist. You might want to try that over there in your little quote league.  Marjorie Taylor Green then spoke to the Republican Party's manager about Nancy Mace. She told on her to Daddy Trump, to which Mace then responded saying, don't look now, but it's Marjorie Taylor Green unable to take the heat running to the principal's office to tattle tail because she can't stand on her own two feet. Bless her heart. Now I'm so sorry to have to do this, Nancy Mace, because I'm rooting for you in this particular exchange. Like I disagree totally with your politics and I unequivocally denounce fiscal conservatism. But I have to say this. It's the wrong version of principal what she used. Now she does point this out, but I mean, since you pointed out the grammatical error made by Marjorie Green, I felt like it was a responsibility for me to point that out. Perhaps I'll misspeak later on in this video and my viewers can correct me and then we'll keep the trend going. But either way here, even if I disagree with Nancy Mace, you can tell who's more adult, who's more reasonable, who's more intelligent. And it's not Marjorie Taylor Green. Now in an interview with Steve Bannon on his show War Room, Marjorie Green took things so much further than even Lauren Boebert. Not only did she say that Lauren Boebert was wrong to apologize to Ilhan Omar, even if that apology was kind of a non-apology and half-assed, but she also made a lot more allegations against Ilhan Omar, which in many ways are worse than what Lauren Boebert said. This is truly unhinged. Take a look. But here you've got this situation. I don't know why Boebert apologized to. I don't understand the apology. I don't think she should have apologized.  Absolutely. You have Ilhan Omar, who she herself said people did something on about 9-11. 9-11. Yeah. Some people did something. And then she's also, she hates Israel. She's pro Hamas. She's pro Al Qaeda. She's basically an apologist for Islamic terrorists. There is no need to apologize to that woman because she will never stop. She's bloodthirsty. She wants Republicans completely taken out. She wants Republicans jailed. She does not care about our country. She's anti-American.  She doesn't want you to have any voice at all. No. And so Lauren tried that route, but it will never be enough for them. It is never enough for the Democrats. It's never enough for Ilhan Omar. It's never enough for the Jihad Squad. Nothing is good enough for them. No one could bow deep enough for them to be satisfied because they want all of us gone. Okay, but here, here's what I think we need to focus on is the Democrats, you don't see any Democrat or any quote unquote moderate Democrats, Spanberger in Virginia 7, Lurie in Virginia 2. You don't see any moderate Democrats ever come after the Jihad Squad. They let them go and they have their back. That's right. They're not off committees. They defend them. Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud. She married her brother, married her brother. That's the most disgusting thing. We don't do that in our country. I'm sorry, American women, we don't marry our brothers, but Ilhan Omar married her brother so she could get them in the country, which is repulsive. And then this woman is constantly attacking our ally Israel, constantly defending terrorism. And she even posted the Minnesota Freedom Fund bail bond link to bail out domestic terrorist when her own city was on fire. This is one of the worst members of Congress. She's a disgrace to our nation. And then here we have Nancy May stepping up and attacking Lauren Boebert simply because Lauren Boebert had said something about Ilhan Omar. It's like no big deal. No one cares. These people say worse things about us. They call us all kinds of names. They call us white supremacists. They call us racist. They call us insurrectionists.  None of us are those things. So when Nancy Mace goes out and wants to attack Lauren Boebert, yeah, she deserves to be called out because Nancy Mace is the one out of line pandering on CNN to Democrat donors. Yeah, she goes on the opposition opposition party network, which is what it is. I genuinely lost so many IQ points listening to that rant. But ask yourself this, does that sound like somebody who is a well adjusted, emotionally stable adult?   It sounds like somebody who is comparable to Alex Jones when it comes to levels of intelligence. But I think that Alex Jones might even be more intelligent than her. Like that was a ranting of somebody who is very, very deeply unwell. And she's in Congress. She has political power. Notice how the things that she says about Ilhan Omar, she just flippantly makes things up.  She's basically an apologist for Islamic terrorists. There's no need to apologize to that woman because she will never stop. She's bloodthirsty. She wants Republicans completely taken out.  There has to be accountability for this. This is slander. I think that if Ilhan Omar were to bring forward a defamation lawsuit, there's no way she wouldn't win that because that is absolutely nonsensical. And her evidence is, well, Ilhan Omar one one time said, some people did something referencing 9 11. Now we already know the context of that. We know that she was making a broader point about demonization of Muslims in America because some bad people did something that was horrible. That doesn't mean that all Muslims are guilty, but you're proving the point she was making there. Maybe you should go back and watch it, but it doesn't matter because it wouldn't resonate with you. It wouldn't even go into your skull because you're dense.  You have a low IQ. She then goes on to say Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud. She married her brother. That's the most disgusting thing. We don't do that in our country. American women. We don't marry our brother. Now notice how she made a distinction between women and American women because that suggests that Ilhan Omar is not a real American. She's a real American, but Ilhan Omar, not a real American. So I mean, at this point, you can just make things up about Marjorie Green because that's the standard that she's creating. There is as much evidence that Marjorie Green married her brother as there is evidence that Ilhan Omar married her brother. I mean, she's literally just making random things up about Ilhan Omar. Fine. Let's make things up about Marjorie Green. She's into bestiality. She has a fecal fetish.  She on top of that, she licks toilet seats whenever she's on airplanes. I mean, we can just all day, we can make things up about Marjorie Green because that's the standard that she's setting. Now I don't want to live in that type of a country where we make things up about one another because that's just that's gutter politics. That's trash. I want to live in a society where we make claims based on facts and evidence and all she's saying there is slander. That's all it is.  I'm lodging a defamation lawsuit against her. You're slandering her in a way that isn't just character assassination. This is taking it to an extreme to where you are actually endangering her life, to where you are inciting violence against her because if you're saying she's pro-al-Qaeda, then Americans are going to be thinking that they're justified if they choose to harm Ilhan Omar. I mean, this is truly beyond the pill. But it's not surprising for these two dipshit lawmakers, Marjorie Green and Lauren Boebert. It's not surprising that they're also both QAnon adjacent. They were former members of QAnon, if not still current members of QAnon. And that's not slander, by the way. That's based on facts. That's based on them. But I mean, it's just the fact that this is tolerated and she doesn't have so much pressure put on her because she said this, that she resigns speaks to how broken we are as a country. But that's truly, that shouldn't be tolerated. It shouldn't be accepted. She should resign. She should be completely removed from Congress, expelled forcefully because that's not okay. There's a difference between criticizing someone based on their policies and committing outright character assassination and slandering them. That's not acceptable. So yeah, I'm honestly like even though it's Marjorie Green, I'm still a little bit taken aback because she takes it so much further than Lauren Boebert. It's like, is there anything that she won't say, like most people, they have a filter.  But Marjorie Green has no filter.  I mean, I can only imagine. I don't want to imagine. But I mean, this is truly morally reprehensible.    Like you you attack the bees nest. It's not attacked. There's some word for it. I don't know why I'm blanking on it, but you've awoken the beast, right? And now they're going to come after you.   I mean, imagine an era where we're not just like talking about how somebody loves terrorism, and we're actually debating the specifics about economic policy. Wouldn't that be lovely? I mean, that's how politics should be in a functioning society, but we're not a functioning society. We're a society that is in turmoil for a plethora of reasons.


First off I want to start off by thanking my opponent and then I also want to thank the judge for judging it and as well as the audience members for viewing this and making this possible. So first I want to begin with harms number one. Synthetrophilizer leads to global warming. Anthropogenic warming is a consensus of the scientific community, hence in 2012. The threat of human-made climate change and the urgency of reducing fossil fuel emissions have become increasingly clear to the scientific community. Science, as described in numerous authoritative reports, has revealed that humanity is now the dominant force driving changes of Earth's atmospheric composition and thus future climate. The climate systems inertia causes climate to respond slowly but in a very long-lasting way to this human-made forcing. Failure to phase out emissions rapidly will leave young people and future generations with an enormous cleanup job and synthetic fertilizer increases nitrous oxide which is directly linked to global warming, Sanders 2012. Samples show a long-term trend in isotopic composition that confirms that nitrogen-based fertilizer is largely responsible for the 20% increase in atmospheric nitrous oxide since the Industrial Revolution. Now our study shows empirically that the nitrogen-nitrogen isotope ratio is a fingerprint of fertilizer use. Nitrous oxide destroys stratospheric ozone which is a steep ramp up in atmospheric nitrous oxide coincided with inexpensive synthetic fertilizer and other developments boosted food production. And synthetic fertilizer leads to global warming, multiple internal links, shall 2011. Synthetic or inorganic fertilizers have drastic side effects in the long run. Using too much of these fertilizers in the soil leads to eutrophication. These substances prove to become toxic for their aquatic life thereby increasing the excessive growth of algae in the water bodies and decreasing the levels of oxygen. 50% of the lakes in the United States are eutrophic. Now fertilizer consists of carbon dioxide, ammonia, and nitrogen the emission of which has contributed to a great extent in the quantity of greenhouse gases present in the environment. Nitrous oxide is the third most significant greenhouse gas. And warming causes extinction, tickle 2008. Global warming on this scale would mean the end of living and the beginning of survival. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with port cities, transport, and industrial infrastructure. And much of the world's most productive farmland, billions would die. Warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a hot house earth. Now observation two, Inherency. U.S. farmers use more fertilizer rather than switching to being sustainable, Gris 2010. In 1960, farmers in developed and developing countries applied 10 million metric tons of nitrogen fertilizer. In 2005, they applied 100 million metric tons. Modern agriculture depends on cheap nitrogen fertilizer. There's not much incentive currently to cut back. Farmers get paid by the ton. Many farmers use fertilizer as a form of insurance, better to apply a little too much and get high yields than apply too little in risk, yield, and profit declines. Now our plan for today, our plan is that farms will be issued EPA Environmental Protection Agency grants given that the farm under the United States federal government definition of being sustainable, namely the elimination of synthetic fertilizer use in favor of more sustainable farming techniques, including but not limited to legion-covered crops and biochar. Our funding is 10 million dollars through normal means. Our agency is through Congress. Our timeline is immediately, and our enforcement is through the Environmental Protection Agency. Now I want to move on to our solvency. Solvency number one, the EPA. EPA grants empirically reduce the use of hazardous farming chemicals. Grants will create change, EPA. Commission growers reduce total acres treated with high-risk pesticides by 55% and 72%. Nearly eliminated, Diozonic cloverias, the Sonoma County Grape Grows Association cut use of nine high-risk pesticides by 32%. Now California almond growers use 77% less organic phosphate pesticides. The dairy manure collaborative has goals including dairy feeding operations use of manure as a resource, improve soil quality, provide nutrients for crops, generate renewable energy, create jobs, and reduce contamination of air and water. And transition from synthetic will be easy. Cornell University 2005. Organic farming offers real advantages. Organic farming not only use an average of 30% less fossil energy, but also conserve more water. Induced less erosion maintains soil quality and conserve more resources than conventional farming does. This study compared a conventional farm with an organic animal-based farm and an organic legume-based farm. Now in this results over time, the organic systems produced higher yields, especially under drought conditions. Erosion degraded the soil on the conventional farm, while the soil on the organic farms steadily improved. Organic agricultural systems has implications for global warming. Soil carbon in the organic systems increased by 15 to 28%. Now corn yields in the legume-based farms were 22% higher than yields in the conventional systems. Now, and sustainable farming techniques massively reduces greenhouse gas emissions while utilizing carbon sequestration, cruise 2004. Compared to the combined greenhouse gas output associated with fertilizer-based and legume-based cropping systems, in their study the conventionally agro ecosystem had a net output of 114 for greenhouse gas. The legume-based tilled cropping system 41 and no till fertilized agricultural ecosystem as 14. In the long run, the legume-based system will have the lowest global warming potential out of all the potentials. Thank you. All right, so let's go to your second card saying that synthetic fertilizer leads to global warming. What in particular does ozone depletion have to do with global warming? Well, ozone, as you know, maintains our CO2 in the ozone itself. So with the depletion over ozone, it lets it out. Doesn't the ozone layer mainly have to do with the protection from ultraviolet rays from the sun? That is a significant part. Okay, thank you.  Can you actually go ahead and read a lot of the warrants you had in there? Why synthetic fertilizer leaves to global warming? Yes, it's because of the eutrophication. What is eutrophication? Eutrophication is with the runoffs and other uptoxics and toxicities in soil that will lead into water supplies as well as other things and just like in our lakes, as I described. I understand why toxicity is bad, but how does that specifically lead to an increase in global warming? Well, what it leads to is it leads to increase in algae. And then when there's an increase in algae, there's not enough oxygen for the fish, for which there's too much of it because it absorbs too much oxygen underneath the water, so then the fish die and it ruins the whole cycle. Okay. Also, let's go on to your plan. So you're saying that you're going to be having 10 million in funding for your plan, correct? That is correct. Do you know how much funding currently exists in the school for agricultural? Yes, it's less than $500,000. $500,000 in total for the entire agricultural sector? Yeah, to be exact, it's about $200,000. Not just the EPA, but the entire US federal government funding? No, for this specific... Just for the EPA? No, for the specific farms what they have currently right now. It's only $200,000 that they have currently. Okay, so we want to increase it to $10 million. Also, so out of this funding of $10 million, how many farms do you think you're actually going to be able to affect? A lot. Do you have a specific number for me? Actually, you know what? Time's up. First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for being here, giving me a good debate today. I'd like to thank the judge for being here and thank the audience as well. I'll be going off case, I have two off cases and they'll be going on case. Alright, so first case on topicality of substantial, my interpretation is that the affirmative must be a quantitative increase. The definition is that a substantial increase is at least 30% by Bryce in 2001, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. The specification defined substantially increased as at least about 30%, more preferably an increase of about 50%. The violation is that the plan is only a minor increase in financial incentives for agriculture. The billions of dollars of funding that is already provided for farms through various programs such as the 2012 Farm Bill far outweighs their plan. Now onto the standards. My definition provides for better preparations and limits. Their interpretation destroys limits by allowing hundreds of cases that spend no money. Negatives will not be prepared with relevant positions and evidence against every possible increase in support. Also, better clash and ground. Minute increases justify the app to no linking out of dissents because they're too small to trigger out of anything. Also, a bright line standard. Compare what the plan spends to existing financial incentives for agriculture. If it is greater than 30%, it meets the violation. By defining substantial as noticeable or important, they make it impossible for the judge to make an objective determination of jurisdiction which is unfair. Now the topicality is a voter for fairness and education. Fairness. Equal preparation for debaters provides for a more fair debate. Fairness is key to debate because without fairness there is no reason to actually come here and debate because one side will always have an advantage over the other. Also the education. Education is key to debate also because we are here as a collegiate program. We are not here creating actual policy. Our purpose is to actually learn about a particular topic and if we can provide for better education, we'll actually have a better program for our colleges. Now onto my second off case. Politics. Comprehensive immigration reform will pass despite setbacks. Long February 21st. Congress will pass an immigration reform bill that Earth Republicans won't jeopardize the effort. The president phoned GOP senators to reiterate that he supports the negotiations. Negotiations are moving forward. Information floats out all the time. That shouldn't prevent him from moving forward. We're going to put a bill on the floor. While some differences between the White House and Senate Plans exist on the whole, they are very similar. And the AFP plan spends and failure to show spending restraint derails the rest of Obama's agenda. Loops door January 22nd. The most crucial portion of President Barack Obama's inaugural address may have been his brief appeal for making the hard choices to reduce the size of our deficit. That's because the outcome of his forthcoming battle with congressional Republicans on curbing federal spending looms as the necessary precursor to Obama's hopes of achieving the rest of his ambitious second term agenda. And Obama will have to push the plan and the GOP will have to get on board. They can't afford to alienate the House through controversial plans, so do January 4th. The president seems to be on board and ready for rolling up his sleeves to get into getting immigration reform, but that won't cut it. The president's support is a necessary condition for any major policy overhaul, but it is not a sufficient condition. Assumes the president can arm wrestle the Senate Democrats and a few Senate Republicans into supporting. Two out of three will not cut it. The Republican-controlled House is what stands in the way of immigration reform. Immigration reform during this year will not be easy, but it's not impossible. And first, reform is key to relations up in Heimer 2012. Immigration reform would have a big economic impact on Mexico and Central America, among other things because the legalization of 11 million undocumented immigrants would prompt many of them to get legal jobs, earn more. But it may also translate into other U.S. initiatives, including closer trade ties with Mexico, Peru, Chile, and other Pacific Rim countries that are part of Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Economic Plan. And reform is key to U.S. competitiveness, push at all, oh, nine. Our immigration system has been broken, and the costs of that failure are growing. Getting immigration policy right is fundamental to our national interests, our economic vitality, our diplomacy, and our national security. Obama has made it clear that reform is one of his top priorities. Immigration has long been America's secret weapon. The U.S. has attracted an inordinate share of talented and hardworking immigrants. The contributions of immigrants have helped maintain the scientific and technological leadership that is the foundation of our national security. And the U.S. has been making life much tougher for many immigrants. Other countries are taking advantage of these mistakes competing for immigrants. And competitiveness is key to the economy and hygieny. The United States global primacy depends on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. The U.S. scientific innovation and technological leadership have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. This technological edge may be slipping. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. It can only remain dominant by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. The United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home. And at a hedronomic decline causes great power wars in 1930s-proofs, Zheng Ji 2011. No other state has the ability to seriously challenge the U.S. military. Many actors have joined the U.S., creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. As the hedronomy withers, the result will be an international order where the power is more diffuse, American interests and influences can be more readily challenged, and conflicts of war may be harder to avoid. Power decline and redistribution results in military confrontation. In the late 19th century, America's emergence as a regional power saw its launch in its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in U.S. power and waning of British power, the American Navy has begun to challenge the notion that Britain rules the waves. What will happen to these advances as America's influence declines? Given that America's authority, although solely at times, has benefited people, the answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way. A post-hedronomic world would return to its problems of the 1930s. Regional blocks, trade conflicts, and strategic rivalry. Major powers would compete for privacy. A world without American hedronomy is one where great powers wars re-emerge, and the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive anti-globalism barriers. Now onto my on-case arguments. First onto their harms. The tagline of their Shulul 11's card states that the fertilizers lead to global warming. However, the card itself barely contains any warrants to support their claim. The only relevant warrant states that nitrous oxide is the third most significant greenhouse gas, which as their senders 12, or the second card there in their harms, shows this only destroys the Ozone layer, but this does not significantly contribute to warming. All this does is increase the amount of ultraviolet rays, which yes will increase the risk of skin cancer. This has nothing to do with global warming. The largest contributors to global warming includes the millions of cars driving on the road right now on the constant burning of fossil fuels that we have in our society. There is no link between synthetic fertilizer and global warming. Also, there will be no extinction. Reject this environmental alarmism collided in Forbes 2007. Apocalyptic stories about their reputable catastrophic damage are blown up to illogical and ridiculous proportions. The alarmists identify a legitimate issue. Take the possible consequences to an extreme and advocate action on the basis of these extreme projections. Alarmism is given more weight than it deserves. As policymakers attempt to appease their contenturacy in the media, environmental alarmism should be taken for what it is. A natural tendency of the public to latch onto the worst. Now let's go on to their solvency. Extend that argument of the weak link to global warming over to their solvency.  Eliminating synthetic fertilizers will do nothing to solve for their harm of global warming. Therefore, their plant does not actually do anything. Thank you for your time. And I vote a strong vote for the negative. All right, first I want to start off by I got a question about the substantial problem that you have right now with my term substantial. How is it that going from 200,000 all the way up to $10 million is not a substantial increase? It's not substantial in the way of that $10 million compared to what we actually already have in the squo in terms of financial subsidies for agriculture. Okay, and but isn't what I've stated the 200,000 status quo. If you look at it with blinders on, it does look like it's a substantial increase. However, when you look at it, look at it in the grand scale of what the USFG actually does. It's very small. Okay, okay. Now, I want to move on and talk about political capital.  You said that the president, if I'm correct, please ask if I'm correct, that the president does not have a political capital to pass my plan and immigration, correct? Correct. Okay, so how much political capital will the president need to pass my plan and immigration? Political capital isn't a substantial, isn't a tangible substance. You can't measure it. However, what we can know is this is that if we do pass your plan, it is going to immediately derail what the president will be doing. It can't be both. Okay, so it's not tangible when you cannot actually count it, then how is it that you need it to pass my plan? It exists. The fact that we know the fact that the president has willpower and has influence over Congress, that is a known fact. There's no way to measure influence. Well, you can measure everything in the universe, so how is it that it exists, but yet you can't measure it and tell me exactly how much it is. That's like trying to measure charisma and intelligence. There's no way to do that. Okay. First off, I want to start by thanking my opponent again for providing this great debate here today. I want to thank the judge himself, as well as the audience members. So first, I want to begin off-case on topicality, then I'll move on-case, and then I'll move off-case on the politics this ad. So let's begin. Topicality is significant. We meet their definition. According to the EPA, a region nine generally awards two to three grants a year varying from between $50,000 and $100,000, and we're increasing that from over to $10 million. So that's a huge, that's more than 30 percent, which my opponent has argued that we did not make it because it didn't meet the 30 percent increase with harm. But we do. We deserve leeway on quantities. Legal definition in words and phrases goes from less than 1 percent to 90 percent. The term substantial is designed to give flexibility and contextual interpretations, not to serve as specifying competing interpretations. We deserve leeway and reasonableness because topicality is an all or nothing issue for us. Melkoff 92, a law professor at UCLA. Substantial is as flexible in the law as ordinary English, and it's a place for discretion. Now, our standards is that we encourage creativity and a depth of analysis. We don't agree with their standards. And that affirmative, we should be encouraged to look into details of different forms of support. This leads into in-depth and creative discussions. Our interpretation allows that. Their stops it by focusing only on big numbers. They have no bright line. Their specification of a percentage threshold is arbitrary. We deal with considerable and important issues as our case evidence illustrates. And that's enough for a good debate. Our literature checks abuse. We read cards founded in the lit or literature. This is enough notice for the negative. They can Google the words in advance and find the same cards we read. This is not a voting issue, judge. And we provide for better education awareness than their interpretation. So, therefore, I believe that we should vote that ours is topical. Now, I want to move on case and do an overview of global warming real quick. Our first extend, first extend Hanson 2012 that human operations are the driving force behind the shifting climate and our synthetic fertilizers have played a significant role in this ship. Extend standards 2012 synthetic fertilizer is linked to a 20% increase in nitrous oxide alone, which doesn't take into account emissions that are produced during the production of these fertilizers. As Shao 2011 explains, fertilizers are linked to global warming through the contamination of our biosphere and water eutrophication. And as my tickle 2008 evidence shows, global warming will lead to our extinction. Now, I want to move on to our access solvency for two reasons. First, extend the EPA, empirically reduces chemicals card. The plan will greatly reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers. Then extend the cruise 2004 card and that conventional farms produce almost 300% more greenhouse gases than the type of farms created through this bill. And that sustainable farming versus global warming trends pulls back from the brink, Lynch 2011. Organic farming generally has lower energy than greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are constantly lower. And the main reasons for better organic performance are the lack of synthetic fertilizers. Now I want to move off case onto the politics dissat that the comprehensive immigration reform won't pass. Congress cannot agree on paths to citizenship. So their argument saying that we don't have political capital means nothing. That's going to fully 2007. The biggest fight on immigration reform will be a pathway to citizenship. Republicans might support undocumented, but not to become citizens, only 10% of American voters support such a plan. Winners win and winners win is empirically more true than the link to the dissat. Number one, the political capital is not finite, as we discussed in the cross examination. Wins on tough issues create a bandwagon effect. And number two, prefer our evidence, it's about Obama's second term and sites at the best academic data, including Norman Ornston. And this is according to her 2009. Now, unquantifiable, but meaningful concept says Norman Ornston of the American Enterprise Institute is what the political capital is. Now the winners and winners win. Green 2010, there's continuous and reciprocal relations between presidential boldness and achievement. Nothing sets the president up for achieving his next goal better than succeed dramatically on the last go around. Therefore, I believe you should vote for my plan. Thank you. All right, so I'm going to be just be going off topicality, then politics, I'll be going on case. So first off, on the topicality, I'm just going to go right down by the line by line, why this debate has been completely unfair this entire time. First off on my interpretation, I provided the card saying that our definition must be at least 30%. This provides a great bright line why it's 30%. If you look at what the current threshold is of the billions currently provided, for example, through the 2012 farm bill, we have to provide at least a 30% increase or more than this. Let's look at his plan here on this violation. All he's doing is providing a $10 million increase through the EPA. Well, he's trying to skew you look, this look over here saying that, oh look, the EPA is only providing $200,000 right now a year. That is not, that's just ridiculous. We have to look at what the USFG is doing in total, because that is what the resolution demands that the USFG should act. And if we look at what the USFG is doing, they're providing billions of dollars in funding. And so with their $10 million increase is only a thousandth of a percent increase. They are not topical in any way to substantial. And the standards here is, once again, it's going to be better preparation of limits. My interpretation provides for better clashing grounds and provides a bright line standard which theirs does not. His definition, all he's saying is that we can provide any number that we want. That is not a good enough bright line. This destroys all fairness, all grounds, all education that we currently have right now. If you take his interpretation, there is no fairness in the round. And the affirmative can run any plan that they want, giving me absolutely no way to provide any ground so that I can actually get an argument that will link to their case. That is why you must vote for my interpretation. Now going on to politics. My evidence that I provided is much more reasons than the uniqueness arguments that he provided. That's why I want to go ahead and extend the fact that comprehensive immigration reform is going to pass right now. The card that he decided to read is much older and has no actual frame of reference to the squo. Also, on to the link, I'm going to turn back the winners-win argument. The presidential term is played with many wins and losses. There's no way to actually prove winners-win. It's not empirical. President Obama has had a lot of win-patterns. He's also had a lot of losses throughout his first term and already into his second term. The winners-win is not a good argument. That's why I want to go ahead and turn that back and that's why I'm winning on the link argument. I also want to go ahead and extend my Loopsdorf card saying the fact that any increased spending on Obama's part that he is supporting is going to upset the rest of his plan. What that would do is that would upset and cause comprehensive immigration reform to fail. The internal link story, the passing of the plan, leads to no passage of the comprehensive immigration reform. This is all conceded here. You never even touched on this. In fact, once there's no immigration reform, that decreases our competitiveness through lower amounts of immigrants. This leads to the destruction of our economy and the hygenomy. Also, once our hygenomy declines, this is going to lead to nuclear war. As I showed this in my first speech, he never touched on this. He concedes the fact that once he passes the plan, it is going to go down this link story in the fact that we are all going to die. That is why we cannot pass this plan. If we pass this plan, there is absolutely no world in which we live. However, if we do pass it, we can get the immigration reform and we can avoid all these terrible effects. We can have an increase in hygenomy and also an increased economy. That is why we cannot pass this plan. Going on case, his harms are absolutely ridiculous throughout this entire debate. He has absolutely no link to global warming. He has tried to wiggle out of this by saying that there's some new trophification. There's some destruction of the ozone layer. This doesn't have actually anything to do with global warming. There are no increase in temperatures. He has not linked himself to global warming in any way, shape or form. He doesn't respond to the argument that I put out there that most of the CO2 in our atmosphere right now is actually coming from other human operations. The massive amount of cars on the road and the use that we're always doing, he never responded to this. Also going on to the solvency, I want to extend that argument I just made over the solvency. He has absolutely no solvency because he can't solve for global warming because there's no link from synthetic fertilizer to global warming. Thank you. First, I just want to thank you all one more last time. I'm going to go to just top county, then I'll move on to the disadvantage of politics disadvantage. Then I'm going to show you how mine outweighs theirs. Let's begin. Their definition was substantial for top counties. They say that increases at least 30 percent. We meet their definition. We absolutely do. I've shown this because of the 50 to 100 thousand dollars in the actual definition on average for the actual amount that they give to these farmers. So increasing that to 10 million is an increase that's over 30 thousand. He said that violation is that our plan is only a minor increase. That's not true. I just proved to you that it's not as well as top county really holds no validity here. And their standards, they're better preparation and limits. They have the same opportunities that we do to look up on the internet or through any kind of dictionaries or anything else to find the same cars and cut the same cars that we do. So this is not giving us any type of advantage at all. It's not causing better clashing ground. They have absolutely the same amount of clashing ground that they do at any other time because again they can look it up on their own and they know it's reasonable. It's within our terms. There are bright lines. There is no bright line. I've already addressed this numerous amount of times. Now when we wanted this as a politics, again all their politics in that we won't pass their comprehensive immigration reform. Yes, that's bad but even if that is true, I believe that we will, we can pass both. But even if it is true, ours outweighs theirs significantly because this will have no effect. The politics disadvantage of theirs will have no effect whatsoever if the world doesn't exist because of global greenhouse gases increasing so much and that global warming effects occur. We won't need to have this passed if we don't have earth or any people to survive on it. So ours clearly outweighs theirs because theirs doesn't have a thing that impacts every single human being on the space of the earth. Instead theirs has one minority of individuals that we can, I believe we can pass both. And I really can't see any kind of arguments that would make it so that they win. So therefore I urge you to vote for my plan and that we will help save the earth.


The second Masters 1000 event just around the corner, the Dubai Championships. We have some big names that have actually pulled out of this event and also some big names that are going in injured after the last couple of weeks. Let's go have a look at the players that are not playing in this event this year. So starting with Kerber, she's pulled out of this one. Kojikov has also pulled out with a back problem. She withdrew from last week's event in Doha as well. So not great to see the defending champion not be able to defend the points from last year. Mukaba continues to withdraw from events due to that wrist injury that's kept her out since the U.S. Open. Jessica Bogula has also pulled out of this one. She pulled out of Doha as well. Not sure when we'll see her again. And Emu Saka, she has also pulled out of this event after doing really well in Doha. Maybe just a bit of soreness because she has played a lot of tennis recently. And she of course hasn't played this much tennis for a while. Maybe to prepare for Indian Wells instead. But massive names there that won't be playing in Dubai in 2024. Some of the players that are coming in with injury concerns, Marta Koshuk, she pulled out of the second round Magicians Pavlia Cenkava last week in Doha. So had a great run at the Australian Open. But unfortunately injured during this Middle Eastern swing. So keeping an eye on her over the next couple of days whether or not she will play. Anastasia Burr has a knee problem that she got in Abu Dhabi. She's had a knee problem for a while. And it did seem to affect her in her second round lost last week. So got to keep an eye on her as well over the next few days. Alina Svetolina also someone we're going to keep an eye on because last week she pulled out of Doha last minute. And it's been injured since the Australian Open when she had to withdraw from her quarterfinals. So another player high profile that we're going to watch out for over the next couple of days to see whether or not she actually makes it to the main draw in Dubai. So there you have it. Big names that are not playing. Big names that are hurt. And we're only in February. So it's a little bit concerning that we're getting some big names that are injured and not playing these big events.  But let me know down in the comments below. Who are you going to miss the most at this Dubai Championship? Of course, for the first time ever we have two 1000s back to back in February for Doha and Dubai. So the Middle Eastern Swing or the Desert Double, if you want to call it that. Dubai, Doha, usually they alternate now it's back to back. And they're really intense events. I mean 1000 events are mandatory. People have to play them. So it's really, really intense on everybody. We do have Sabah Lanky coming back from the first time. So that's going to be fun. But let me know down in the comments below. Who do you're going to miss the most going to Dubai next week?


Shipmates, it's the 19th of March, 2020. A lot has changed in the past week, and the impacts of the coronavirus are changing daily life for all of us. Our focus right now is threefold. We must protect our people, and we must maintain mission readiness. And finally, we have to support the whole of government effort. That is why we've enacted additional policies designed to combat the spread of coronavirus. We've done a number of things, including moving to shift work, reducing our manning, and increasing our telework. We have closed DOD schools and many MWR facilities as well as curtailed some child and youth programs. We have postponed our E4 advancement exam. We've suspended the spring physical readiness test, and we've postponed draw weekends for reserves until 11 May. We've also suspended recruit graduation ceremonies until further notice. Additionally, we will pause administrative and statutory promotion boards for the time being. But many things remain open too, including our commissaries, our exchanges, our military health treatment facilities, as well as our nurse advice line and our My Navy Career Center, all available 24-7 to answer your questions. We are also preparing our two 1,000 bed hospital ships, the Mercy and the Comfort to get underway to relieve pressure on civilian health providers who are focused on treating folks with the coronavirus. Operationally, to keep our ships or aircraft and our submarines ready, our commanders are empowered to take the necessary precautions so that they can effectively carry out their missions and meet the critical needs of our sailors. While 30% of our fleet is underway today, including four carrier strike groups and four amphibious ready groups, we must, to the greatest extent possible, practice social distancing as well as good hygiene and cleanliness aboard our ships, in our offices, in our homes. American continues to depend on us to provide security and stability to this nation, and we will do just that. Expect additional guidance over the days and weeks ahead as this situation continues to change. To stay up to date on these changes, check out our coronavirus page on navy.mil. Finally, we must be mindful that while many of our shipmates are very adept at maintaining their support networks, for some, social distancing can lead to a loss of connectedness and feelings of isolation. You need to know that you're not alone. If you or if one of your shipmates needs help, reach out to the resources that we have available, whether it's the Military Crisis Line, Military One Source, our Navy Chaplain Care, or the Psychological Health Resource Center. We also have our Navy Marine Corps Public Health Center and our Navy Marine Corps Relief Society. Above all, take care of yourselves, your families, and each other. Your safety remains our primary concern as we continue to carry out the Navy's mission and defense of our nation.


So do you need to be a great player or have been a great player yourself to be a basketball coach or skills trainer? That's what we're going to talk about in today's video. My name is Nick Aldearo. I'm a client success coach success coach with make money coaching sports where we help coaches grow their business to six figures plus per year help more kids and Live their dream of helping others in the sport that they absolutely love to coach So if you're looking to connect after this, you could text me at the number behind me<PHONE_NUMBER> text me the word grow or you can schedule a call on the calendar below So do you need to be a great basketball player yourself or have had a great career to be a basketball? skills trainer or coach The answer to that if you you know, you could probably stop watching this video right now If you want to is no you don't and and the reason for that is You could be a great player. Let's talk about like let's say Alan Iverson Do you think Alan Iverson could teach other people what he could do? most likely not Could JR Smith teach his abilities to somebody else? And there's I'm just picking names out that I don't think would be a great coach But I mean I could be wrong But if I had to guess I would say certain players that are really really good And I've come across them that you know the college level and just meeting other people Just because you're the best player doesn't mean you're the best coach And you don't have to have been the best player on your team to be a good coach a great coach or trainer studies the game Right they are a great communicator They're able to talk about what people do who are very very good at the game So they might be able to show you a video and point out these little details Let's say they have a Kyrie Irving video and they might be able to show a player Hey, look the way he turns his foot this way look with the position of his shoulders, right? He doesn't have to be like Kyrie himself As long as he can explain to his player they got person he's working with How he can he or she can improve now Does it does it give you a little bit more validity at first if you're good to yourself It could help right at first because some people are kind of I Don't want to say ignorant to to this fact but like some people think oh like Like where did you play and how many points you score and think like it doesn't? Necessarily matter what does it doesn't matter what matters is Can you help other people get better? Right your playing career doesn't really have to do with that doesn't look better at first probably but If you are only relying on hey, I played division one and I scored this many points and you should come train with me like if I'm Looking for a coach or trainer. I am not If somebody is leading with that That's not a good sign because what they're saying is look at what I did Not how I can help your kid just because you played at a certain level doesn't mean you can help that child Get to that level unless you're a good teacher. You communicate really well You study the game right your analytical you break things down you teach in detail like being good physically talented Doesn't translate most even most times it doesn't even translate most times a lot of times it's the player on the team who Had to who play when they played had to be a little bit more crafty because they weren't as athletic or as talented Right now that being said Is somebody gonna respect you if you literally like dribble and you smack the ball like it's like a six-year-old Probably not right. Of course. There's some level of like Hey, dude, are you like a complete like? Spaz when you You can't literally can't even like walk and chew gum here. Well, I mean and I'm not talking about people with Disabilities, of course Because you could be somebody with a disability and still be a great coach you just have to you might just have to show Somebody else doing it or mimic the actions Slow with no ball Right, you don't have to be a great player um That's only that only helps like your playing resume when people like first Like oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm gonna play with I'm gonna train with so-and-so. He was in the g league Right, but then if you train with the person you're like this guy It's not a great coach like Talks about himself and that what he used to do like that doesn't that doesn't do anything for you. It's not about Coach it's about how can coach help you and if he can't articulate and explain and communicate effectively It doesn't really matter that he played at UCLA and went to the g league and went to that like Um, can you be at that how level of player and still be a great communicator? Of course, that's like That's only like icing on the cake. That's like extra It's cool. It's great, but it's like Doesn't have to do with the kid right everything's about the kid. Can you make the kid better? That's it.  We have a lot of people doing it in our accelerator program Um Text me that word grow my number is on the uh the board behind me You can also schedule a call and in the description you can click a link that says how do we help players? Or how do we help coaches and it'll show you exactly what we do in our program? If you're looking for that extra help and you're a serious Coach and you have a business Okay, I'll see you next video


The floor may not be in the robot. Being a big fan of Nickelodeon shows from the 1990s, I was very disappointed when Knitgames & Sports ended in 2007. Well about a week ago, I was channel surfing late at night, when I saw Knitgames & Sports in the lineup. I instantly assumed it was some sort of error. Knitgames & Sports had been closed for quite some time now, why would it be broadcasting today? I started watching a rerun of Figure It Out. About halfway in, I noticed something weird. The color was way off, and the contestant, the kid with the talent, was nowhere to be seen. I tried to keep watching, but it abruptly ended and quickly cut to the network bumper. Things quickly got horrifying.  The rest was a static redness. I tried to convince myself it wasn't real. Maybe the signal got screwed up, or maybe we have another max headroom hacker. I ignored it and continued watching. Up next was what I thought was legends of the hidden temple, but this was different. Oh mech looked pissed about something. The announcer just stood there blankly, and the kids were nowhere to be seen. Then it cut to Team Red Jaguar's trying to cross the moat, only to get brutally concussed and drowned. Mortified, I tried to turn it off, but my cable box kept giving me the same error message. Could not complete requested action. Please try again later. I tried to unplug it, but my cable box's battery was fully charged. It would be at least another hour before the thing would die. I decided to keep calm, and just let it run its course. The next shot was of the blue bear coot is attempting the temple run. They abruptly stopped. I was treated to a shot of their mangled corpses embedded in a pit of spikes. Again, mortified and desperate, I tried to unplug the output table. I couldn't see anything in the dark. I tried to convince myself that it was all some sort of elaborate scopes. The last show was Double Dare. It started out mostly normal, Mark asked the questions, and the kids would suck at answering them. I was relieved, to say the least. But then the physical challenge started. Dear God, the physical challenge. The kids were given AK-47s, and forced to kill one member of the opposite team. The red kid, crying, shot the blue kid's mom. Mark then laughed demonically, and proceeded to murder the red kid's mom. The corpses were bloodied and lying on the floor, in testines and guts ripped out. I couldn't take it anymore. I poured a can of Fanta on my TV and short-circuited it, cable box and all. I've since received a replacement, but I have again a problem. Last night, knit games and sports showed up in the menu.