Okay, so I'm gonna start off where Dan left off with reference to King's Beyond Vietnam speech in which he laid bare the relationship between US wars abroad and racism and poverty being challenged by the civil rights movement at home. This is a quote, I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today my own government. In that speech, he also said, quote, I'm convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit modems and property rights are considered more important than people the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered. And he said, a nation that continues year after year to spend more military, more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. And I always ask myself, are we dead yet? Last month and just over a week we experienced two shocking US military strikes and an alarming increase in tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Two days after major newspapers reported that a chemical attack had occurred in a village in Syria killing and injuring many civilians the US launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base the first direct military attack against the government of Syrian President Assad. Despite the fact that there had been no investigation by any international agency that might confirm a chemical weapons attack occurred or who was responsible and in violation of international law this bombing was unquestionably welcomed by most of the mainstream media and democratic leadership in Congress bombing apparently is considered presidential. On April 13th, seemingly out of the blue the US dropped a 22,000 pound bomb on an ISIS or Daesh cave complex in Afghanistan this so-called massive ordinance air blast bomb or MOAB mechanistically called the mother of all bombs was the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used by the United States on the battlefield and I think it should be called the FOAB the father of all bombs what signal was being sent into whom? The next day the National Nuclear Security Administration announced the successful field test of a B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb at the Nevada test site with speculation about a potentially imminent nuclear weapons test and several missile launches by North Korea tensions on the Korean Peninsula have risen to the highest level in decades as US and North Korean officials posit threats and counter threats of preemptive military strikes even hawkish former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned, quote we have the potential for a nuclear war that would take millions of lives so I think we have to exercise some care here this isn't the only nuclear flashpoint tensions between the United States slash NATO and Russia have risen to levels not seen since the Cold War with the two nuclear giants confronting each other in Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Syria and an accelerated tempo of military exercises and war games, both conventional and nuclear on both sides the US, the only nation with nuclear weapons deployed on foreign soil is estimated to have 180 nuclear weapons stationed at six NATO bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy the Netherlands and Turkey in June of last year the largest NATO war games in decades were conducted in Poland the exercises came weeks after activating a US missile defense system in Romania and groundbreaking for another missile defense system in Poland Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that there would be, quote action in response to guarantee our security and sure enough in October, Russia moved nuclear capable Iskander missiles into the Kaliningrad territory bordering Poland and Lithuania signaling its response to NATO while at the same time claiming it was a routine exercise Russian officials have previously described the role that the 500 kilometer range Iskander system would play in targeting US missile defense installations in Poland then at the end of January amid concerns about Donald Trump's commitment to NATO 87 US tanks 144 armored vehicles and 3,500 troops took part in a demonstration of NATO firepower in Poland according to General Ben Hodges the commander of the US Army in Europe quote, this is the largest ever US deployment in Poland and it's about deterrence an outright attack by Russia is unlikely but the best way to keep it unlikely is to do what we're doing here today end quote Russia not surprisingly saw the deployment as a quote serious threat according to Putin's spokesperson and former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev warned quote, it looks, it all looks as if the world is preparing for war and as he wrote in Time Magazine quote, more troops, tanks and armored personnel carriers are being brought to Europe NATO, I'm sorry, being brought to Europe NATO and Russian forces and weapons that used to be deployed at a distance are now placed closer to each other as if to shoot point blank now at the moment Donald Trump seems to have a warm and fuzzy view of Chinese President Xi Jinping but at the same time the US is facing off against China in seas where other Asian nations are contesting Chinese territorial claims and just this week the US Navy warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of an artificial island built up by China this so-called freedom of navigation operation is the first such challenge to China under the Trump administration and India and Pakistan remain locked in a nuclear arms race amid mounting diplomatic tensions Derek Johnson, Executive Director of Global Zero has recently stated this this is an unprecedented moment in human history the world has never faced so many nuclear flash points simultaneously from NATO Russia tensions to the Korean Peninsula to South Asia and the South China Sea and Taiwan all of the nuclear arms states are tangled up in conflicts and crises that could catastrophically escalate at any moment, end quote an accidental or intentional military incident could send the world spiraling into a disastrous nuclear confrontation a great danger is that the rulers of one nuclear arms state will miscalculate the interests and fears of another pushing some geopolitical gambit to the point where economic pressures, covert actions low intensity warfare and displays of high tech force escalate into regional or general war and this vulnerability to unintended consequences I think is reminiscent of the circumstances that led to World War I and I'd like to ask Adam about that later while our ability to discern what's actually going on is shrouded in an unprecedented web of intrigue and a blizzard of propaganda there can be no doubt that the dangers of wars among nuclear arms states are growing but I don't want to talk about Donald Trump I want to talk about the continuity in U.S. nuclear weapons and national security policies Trump's ability to launch massive military strikes on a whim while threatening global annihilation within the first 100 days of his presidency was only possible because of the vast military industrial complex he inherited this continuity is exacerbated by Trump's shifting more authority over military operations to the Pentagon on December 22nd 2016 President-elect Donald Trump ominously tweeted quote, the United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes in February of this year President Trump said it would be wonderful a dream would be that no country would have nukes but if countries are going to have nukes we're going to be at the top of the pack his initial budget request signals his administration's intention to prioritize reliance on the nuclear threat so while it's only a small portion of his proposed $54 billion increase in military spending the $1.4 billion budget increase for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration which oversees nuclear weapons research and development is a proportionally higher increase at 11% than the 8% increase the Pentagon would get Trump's 2018 budget request for weapons activities under the National Nuclear Security Administration at $10.2 billion quote to meet the administration's requirements to modernize the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and infrastructure is almost 11% higher than the 2017 level and I want to be very clear that that does not include many, many billions more for delivery systems which are under the Department of Defense so in an increasingly volatile world this is consistent with U.S. national security policy in the post World War II and post Cold War eras despite the dramatically changed geopolitical conditions now if you cast your mind back many of you will remember that during the 1980s fear of nuclear war was by far the most visible issue of concern to the American public in the early 1980s thousands of people rallied and were arrested in nonviolent acts of nonviolent protest yet following the end of the Cold War nuclear weapons and especially U.S. nuclear weapons fell off the public's radar screen meanwhile deeply embedded in the military industrial complex Pentagon planners and scientists at the nuclear weapons labs conjured up new justifications to sustain the nuclear weapons enterprise following the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 Colin Powell then chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared quote, you've got to step aside from the context we've been using for the past 40 years that you base military planning against a specific threat we no longer have the luxury of having a threat to plan for what we plan for is that we're a superpower we are the major player on the world stage with responsibilities and interests around the world in 1997 nearly 10 years after the Cold War ended President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 60 reaffirming the threatened first use of nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of U.S. national security and contemplating the expanded role for nuclear weapons to deter not only nuclear but chemical and biological weapons the Bush Doctrine of Preventive War was a continuation and expansion of programs and policies carried out by every U.S. administration Republican or Democrat since 1945 when President Harry Truman, a Democrat oversaw the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki his soaring rhetoric notwithstanding President Obama left office with the United States poised to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to maintain and modernize its nuclear bombs and warheads the submarines, missiles and bombers to deliver them and the infrastructure to sustain the nuclear enterprise indefinitely over the past couple of years the U.S. has conducted a series of drop tests of the newly modified B61-12 gravity bomb at the Tonapa test range in Nevada the Russian Foreign Minister has declared these tests provocative the B61-12 has a selectable yield making it up to four times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb it has a new tail kit which provides precision guidance this capability along with the selectable yield raises concerns that it could be considered more militarily usable each new bomb will cost more than twice its weight in solid gold 181 B61 bombs slated to become the B61-12s approximately 180 will be deployed at the six NATO bases in Europe Trump's 2018 budget request includes 10.3 billion dollars for 70 F-35 joint strike fighters which will be capable of carrying these bombs Pentagon budget documents show that the F-35A is scheduled to be certified to carry nuclear weapons in fiscal year 2025 and this illustrates the long planning horizons in the military and among the nuclear planners so more than a quarter century since the end of the Cold War nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons most in order of magnitude more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs more than 90% held by the U.S. and Russia continue to pose an intolerable threat to humanity and the biosphere recent studies show that a nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs dropped on cities could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history a drop in average surface temperatures depletion of the ozone layer and shortened agricultural growing seasons would lead to massive famine and starvation resulting in as many as 2 billion deaths over the following decade now the good news is I knew you were waiting for good news as that much of the world has come to its senses regarding nuclear weapons in December of last year over vociferous objections by the United States and Russia the United Nations General Assembly voted to hold negotiations in 2017 on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons leading to their elimination incredibly here's how President Obama's U.N. Ambassador Robert Wood explained the U.S. objection quote a treaty banning nuclear weapons will not lead to any further reductions because it will not include the states that possess nuclear weapons advocates of a ban treaty say it is open to all but how can a state that relies on nuclear weapons for its security possibly join a negotiation meant to stigmatize and eliminate them he said that on the floor of the United Nations it's available in writing the first week of the negotiations took place at U.N. headquarters in New York the last week of March with 130 countries participating on the opening day Trump's U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley held a press briefing outside the conference hall flanked by nuclear allies including the U.K. and France and claiming to represent almost 40 U.N. member states Haley proudly identifying herself first and foremost as a mom a wife and a daughter who wants to keep her family safe announced that they will be boycotting the negotiations so I am rethinking whether maybe the mother of all bombs isn't so wrong after all a draft treaty was released earlier this week and the ban treaty negotiations will resume on June 15th at United Nations headquarters in New York City it is anticipated that a treaty will be agreed upon by the close of negotiations on July 7th and I do want to mention that the Women's International League for Houston Freedom founded by Jane Adams over 100 years ago is the umbrella organization organizing a women's march to ban the bomb on June 17th in New York with sister marches around the world but how are we to understand the meaning of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons leading to their total elimination if no nuclear armed states participate so I want to quote from a statement made by Iran in May to a review concession for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty this is what Iran said Iran by the way was the first state to renounce nuclear weapons and join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970 quote reiterating our full support for negotiating a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons to prohibit their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling transfer use or threat of use and to provide for their destruction we would like to stress that the ongoing United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons leading toward their total elimination should be considered a collective protest by a large number of non-nuclear weapons states parties that are frustrated from 47 years of non-compliance of the nuclear weapons states with their nuclear disarmament obligations we hope that this situation would compel nuclear weapons states to come to the conclusion that they cannot remain consistently inconsistent with their nuclear disarmament obligations this indeed is an alarming situation and cannot continue indefinitely that's the end of the Iran quote to realize the full value of a ban treaty we must demand that the nuclear armed states recognize the existing illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under international law protecting civilians and the environment from the effects of warfare the governments of these states must finally act to meet their disarmament obligations under Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law and participate in good faith in the negotiations as unanimously mandated by the International Court of Justice in its 1996 advisory opinion I'm almost done, you can put that down however it's unlikely that much progress will be made on nuclear disarmament until there is a significant trend towards demilitarization in general in 2016 the United States spent $611 billion on its military more than twice as much as China and Russia combined amounting to 36% of world military spending the bottom line is that security must be fundamentally redefined instead of national security the security of the nation's state premised on the threat of overwhelming military force and nuclear annihilation we need a new concept of human security defined by our previous head of the United Nations Development Program as quote the security of people not just of territory the security of individuals not just of nations security through development not through arms security of all the people everywhere in their homes, in their jobs, in their streets in their communities and in their environment this new concept of human security is quote universal, global and indivisible addressing nuclear dangers must take place in a much broader framework taking into account the interface between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons and militarism in general the humanitarian and long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with democracy the rule of law and human well-being nuclear disarmament should serve as the leading edge of a global trend towards demilitarization and redirection of military expenditures to meet human needs and protect the environment we must reject the apocalyptic narrative and summon the imaginations of people everywhere to envision a vastly different future there's no inevitability to the course of history and a mobilized citizenry can redirect it toward a positive future progress towards a global society that is more fair, peaceful and ecologically sustainable is interdependent we are unlikely to get far on any of these objectives without progress on all but these are not preconditions for disarmament together with disarmament they are preconditions for human survival in our relationships both with each other and the planet we are now hard up against the choice Dr. King warned about 50 years ago non-violence or non-existence


If we don't give to women the possibility to be in the labor spaces, then this is a loss for women, but also for the nation. So this is not only that we are discriminating part of the society, but this is also a loss on efficiency, because, you know, this was an important term in the progressive era, was rationality, scientific efficiency. So for Harry, it's also an argument if you want to have a better economy for the United States, you need to give more space for women. Women can help to improve the relationship in the work spaces. So I'm Rebecca Gomez with Encore, and I'm the University of Lyon, too, and I'm a researcher at Triangle. Charlotte Birkin-Gilmans was a U.S. woman, probably one of the first that wrote a book who put in the title Women and Economics, published in 1898. She's actually very well known as a novelist, as a humanist, educator, more than her words on economics. I became interested in Charlotte Birkin-Gilmans actually because of her biography, who is very interesting. She actually was very influential by her three aunts. One is a suffragist, one is a writer, another one is an educationalist. And she wrote a lot of books, and in all these books, the role of women was central. This is a period that historians would call the progressive era, and in this period, there is a big transformation on the place of women, kids, young people, also, of course, the race question. And she talked about this transformation to put and to give a more space for women in economics. She wrote a lot, and she's very well known in literature, in sociology, because she has mainly these two kind of works, literature, mainly autobiographical, as probably the best well-known is the Yellow Wall paper, in which she describes the postpartum depression. But she also has this trilogy, very important, probably the most known is Hairland, where she describes this utopian world. But she also has a lot of writings in sociology and economics, and what I try to do is to read these together, the utopian, the novels, the more psychologist books, and the economics book, and try to understand her thinking and to give her a place in the history of economics, and to do more hair stories of economics, to have more authors women in our history of economics. For me, the clearest idea that she introduced is that the necessary condition for women is to be independent, economically speaking. So women needs to go to the workplace, to the job market, to earn their life, to go outside of the home. So she really analyzed the behavior of families, women, men, kids inside of the home, and she explained the necessity for women to be independent, economically speaking. And she also related this with what we call a new ethics. She used the word moral ethics, a high-gen ethics, as many of the authors of the Progressive Era, and she said that we need to make a link between the economy of the home and the economy of the big companies and societies in the United States. So through these ethics, that actually is to pay attention to the common concern of all the members at the home and in the companies and different firms that you're going to work out. This is a research that I'm doing with some colleagues. One of them is Guillaume Vallet from the University of Grenoble. He already published a very nice article in the European Journal of the History of Economic Code on Charlotte Berking-Gildman, and we have other projects, for example, on prostitution and on race on Charlotte Berking-Gildman. But in our current research that we present in the American Economic Association at New Orleans, we focus on the notion of industrial ethics is how to be our behavior when we go and work in these big societies in the United States. So this is the period of the transformation and a big development in the United States. So how women and men and all the individuals, how they need to live, how they need to conduct it, how to be this moral and this, what we call the industrial ethics, to, you know, for the, she said for the good of the nation, for the good of the United States. But she exactly says that we really need to make a projection that what we have at home in the different companies where we're going to work. So we need to reproduce what we have at home, so our behavior with our family on our workplaces. I'm very interested in this progressive era in general, in this period, which generally speaking, we can say that started in the 80s, 80s, 80s, 19s, until the 1920s. And I used to work on a lot of men economists, as Irving Fischer, or as Edwin Walter Kemmer or Frank Tossick. But then I said I really, I need to enlarge these pictures and to do more hair stories and start to look at other characters that are absent in the history of economics. So I found Charlotte Berking-Gildmans. I found Jane Adams. She was born on the sociology and economic side of the academics, but then they were not economists. They were not professional economists. So, and this is, you know, Charlotte Berking-Gildmans was born in 8060. Then you have some years and then you have the first generation of women economists. And Hazel Kirk is one of the first economists. She studied at the University of Chicago. She wrote her dissertation with one institutionalist economist. And so she has another way to write, another sources, another style methodologies. Both are really interesting and both contributing to the history of economics. I think this is interesting to make the links and to try to make the connection from the very first generation of women who were interested in economics, but actually didn't study economics at the universities. And then this first generation of professional economists as Hazel Kirk. So she was one of the first hum economists in the United States. So this is a very important movement, a department inside some universities in the United States. They have their journal, their society. So Hazel Kirk, Jessica Peixoto and others are economists. The very, very first generation, they study chemistry, physics, another more technical careers. So Hazel Kirk is a very curious figure. She tried to make a place for women at the universities. So she fight a little bit with the economics department. So she found a refuge in the hum economics department. And four years later, she got a position as a professor of economics. So she was both professor of economics and hum economics. So this is very interesting in her story. It's very interesting to, you know, trying to complete the history of economics, trying to do this hair story of economics, because then you find key characters, key elements as Gilman, as Peixoto, as Kirk or Reed. Because Kirk, actually, she supervised nine PhD students at the University of Chicago. So she formed kind of a school of thought of women economists. So what I think for me now, until now for my research, is that I can keep some elements from Gilman, for example, the importance of this empowerment of women, the importance of this economic independence for women to have then social and political rights. And maybe for Kirk, the importance that she gave, for example, to the consumption, consumption economics, because until now, like all the 19th century, is a lot of saving and growth. And then she put a light on the consumption part of economics. And both of them gave importance to what happened inside of the home. So you know, there are some links between them, even if, you know, there are very different characters. One is a social reformer. Charlotte Perkin-Gilman have many relations with women, men, romantic relations. So there are these letters, personal journals, all the biographical aspects of her life are very, very important. And then you have Kirk, who is an economist, a professional economist. But then you can trace some links between the two, and this is fascinating. One aspect of Charlotte Perkin-Gilman ideas that I found very original is when she said that we need to connect the home with our behavior in the workplaces, is that she said women have this capacity, actually she said this natural capacity. So I criticized this a little bit because she said that this is genetical. But women has this capacity to, in the job market, in the labor spaces, to transform the relation thanks to this modern hood, this capacity to improve, to develop more solidarity, better relations among human beings. So what she said is women has this capacity to counterbalance the behavior of men that are in all the institutions, and she denounced this. She said universities are taken by men, most of the societies and the job market in general is taken by patriarchal system, and she used the term. So she denounced this and she said women have this capacity. And if we don't give to women the possibility to be in the labor spaces, then this is a loss for women, but also for the nation. So this is not only that we are discriminating part of the society, but this is also a loss on efficiency, because you know this was an important term in the progressive era, was rationality, scientific efficiency. So for her is also an argument that if you want to have a better economy for the United States, you need to give more space for women. Women can help to improve the relationship in the work spaces. The study of these two characters is very important to understand, for example, many debates that we have today between gender economics and feminist economics. We have these two soup fields of economics that are, I hope, very influential in the current debates and still very influential. And this is some scholars that are more focused on microeconomics or in the behavior inside the household, and you can do quantitative or qualitative methodologies. And then you have more macroeconomics debates, larger debates, certainly more political engaged in feminist economics. So I'm part of IAFI, International Association for Feminist Economics. So I'm historian of economics, but I'm also a feminist economics. So the study of these two characters allow me to present to my students at the University of Lyon the contribution of these women in the economic terms and in methodological terms, but also their fights as we can use also in feminist economics. When I discuss with my students at the University of Lyon, they always ask me to contextualize these contributions if this is only U.S. story or this happened in other part of the world. And it's true that the progressive era is a very American movement, but also in another institution that I'm part of and I'm currently the president of the Latin American Society for the History of Economic Thought, A Lape. We are also studying the same movement that happened at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century and still happened of the place of women in society, the place of women economists in academia and their contribution. So I hope that we can find another characters as Charlotte Perkin-Gildmans or Hazel Kirk in Latin America or in France or in other part of the world.


The course is even saying that nothing you've ever experienced will prepare you for the experience of remembrance of your identity, no matter how glorious all your miracle working will be. It won't even come close to the final crescendo, the best for last, not so much in a linear sense, but more of an inward sense when you finally are taken finally into the blazing light, you know, it will leave you speechless, there won't be no words, and I just think of all these parables, like one time I was coming, I was going to be flying out to San Francisco and I called a friend of mine who had just moved from New York to Southern California, and I said, she was a singer, songwriter, and guitarist, and I just said, her name was Miki, and my K.I., and I said, why don't you just go on tour with me, like I fly to San Francisco and you fly up there and then we'll just take a car down the coast, your parents are on the coast, we'll visit them and we'll just do a California tour. And she was like, well, I would love to go with you on a little California tour, but you know, I'd have to get off of my job and I said, you could do that, and she said, well, my boyfriend is not so keen about the idea really, of us going on a little tour, and so she said, you know, he, you would have to talk to him, would you call him, would you call and talk to my boyfriend, and I said, sure, no problem. So I called him and we just had a great talk and it was just very adorable and we had this adorable talk. Later on she would say, he was stoned, I would have loved to have him have a conversation with you when he's not stoned, but anyway, whatever spirit works it out, he was stoned, I had a great, glorious journey with him, I can't tell whether people were stoned or not. I'm high, so how am I supposed to, so how am I supposed to stoned? So I was high, we had this great conversation and he's like, okay, yeah, man, all right, I'm cool with it, I'm cool with it, he's cool with it. So I flew out to San Francisco and we were in San Francisco and I said, well, we're in San Francisco, they had this big Zen, like Japanese Zen meditation garden and I think her mother was Japanese, so we went there. We shot a music video to one of her songs on her album, we had the camera men show up, a friend of mine showed up, her little boy was there, who was a real ham and it was his main star in the music video and in this beautiful meditation garden, we shot in one day an entire music video, Thomas showed up as well, who was a great cinematographer in the video, so everything showed up, then we took off and we were going down, down, down the coast, we stopped and visited her mother, father, we stopped at their family's house, we had a great time, then we went down and we're coming down towards Santa Barbara and we were supposed to go on live television and we're coming down and she's like, well, you know, I've got a couple things that I really am thinking a lot about, I said, what, anything, the Holy Spirit, you're doing this for the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit will give you everything because you're willing this to be part of these miracles and so she's like, well, two things, I said, just ask anything, she said, I actually would like to have an authentic Mexican burrito for lunch, I said, that should be no problem at all and what else and she said, well, she flew, she brought a small guitar, not her full guitar that she's most comfortable with the strings because in the plane she couldn't fit, she said, I've got, the guitar is too small to go on live television because my fingers, you know, I'm nervous, I'm anxious to even go on live television, much less with the small guitar, so well, what do you want, she said, I want a full-sized guitar and I want it, you know, I'd like it to be strong with my favorite strings and I want a Mexican, authentic Mexican burrito, so we're on the highway, I'm saying, okay, we're driving along, I said, okay, I pulled the car off the next exit, we go over there and I look, look, there's a music store, what was right next to the music store was authentic Mexican burritos, we went into the music store and then the guy in there was just so loving, he said, how can I help you and there was a famous guitarist, a famous female guitarist, one of the most famous female guitarists who had left one of her guitar, it was my friend's idol, had left one of her guitars in the shop and the guy offered to let my friend Mickey use this legends guitar and said to Mickey, what would you like me, I could string it with any guitar strings that you want and she picked the very kind, so she had her idol, her legends guitar and the strings just the way she wanted them and the authentic Mexican, it's like the Holy Spirit so easily, just like, is this, you know, the Course says you don't ask for too much, you ask for far too little, but if you're willing to be a miracle worker, if you're willing to just shine your love and life and joy for God, then everything gets added unto you, that would actually help you serve in the most kind of magical way, really, it's just how the miracle works, but those are the kind of, if you have a bunch of those kinds of experiences over and over and over and over and you start to realize this is now your life as a miracle worker, it's just the way your life goes, but you see how it's a convincing job, like, you know, it seems like from the human perspective, I don't know how I'm gonna go from where I seem to be into this miracle working thing that the Course is talking about, but it's actually just saying, well, just be willing to be of true service, be willing to plug in and it will all be given in the most miraculous way, you know, the most joyful, glorious way.