Does Jesus really call his children to build an identity, a culture, or structures instead of only aligning ourselves with what he's already doing? We are honored to have Melvin Layman back with us for another episode. In the last one we did with him, we talked about community, and now we're moving into some other related issues such as culture. So Melvin, to begin, can you find culture? Yes. If you'll give me just a minute here, I did some work on culture over the past number of years, and here's a definition that I've used at various places. It didn't come from Webster's. I don't know that I can say that it's unique with me, but it's one I wrote myself. Culture is the aggregate heart expression of a community's love slash values. So their loves and their values. The aggregate heart expression of a community's love values that orders the affairs of daily life and defines a community's concept of meaning, personal significance, and identity. It's a big long statement there, but think of it this way. So it's my heart and its expression of its loves and its values, what I really love, what I really care about. And a community's aggregate expression of that is what speaks of what they think is important, meaning, personal significance, and identity. Culture feeds that and develops it. So that's the definition I use. So given that definition, what does the church have to do with culture, and what is the church's responsibility in relation to culture? Yes. That's a, I think, one of the more important questions to be asked in the 21st century. It feels as though we have gotten stuck on salvation issues. I shouldn't say stuck. We've emphasized them and have struggled like everything of knowing how to disciple people and how to bring them to maturity. That seems to be across Christianity a problem. Because I thought about that, it occurred to me that culture brings much more to us than what we think it does and what we've given it credit. So I remember when growing up, sitting in Sunday school classes and other places, or just in conversation, somebody would say, wow, that's just cultural. As if that doesn't matter, I've discovered that actually it's exactly the opposite. If something is cultural, that's the reason it matters. If something that we've adopted, we do, maybe we don't know why we do it, but it matters because it's cultural. Why do I say that? I thought, well, there must be a scriptural basis for this, if this is really true. This idea of the importance of culture. And I just would offer a few passages that are, I think, very, very important. What started me down this path was 1 Corinthians chapter 3. And if you'll remember the context there, there's Paul and there's Cephas and there's some Apollos and there's a little argument in the Corinthian church and Paul's trying to get them straight. And when he gets to chapter 3, the passage that we know the very best in there is the one that says there's no other foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. We know that very well, 1 Corinthians 3, verse 11. But the main point of the chapter is not actually that, because he goes on to say that, now since that's true, then every person needs to be very, very careful how they build on top of it. And I immediately say, huh, so the foundation of Christ, there's no argument, it has to be that foundation. Now Paul says, but no, wait a minute, be careful about how you build on top of it. Now it does seem as though he's talking personally, but I think it could be applied corporately. So how are we building on Christ? And he goes on to say, well, some build with, and he gives some materials, wood hay and stubble and others with durable material. And the fire would test this out, will actually see if it's a good building or not. And ends that little passage by saying that, well, you know, some people have their whole work wiped out, but they themselves will be saved, I suppose, because they build on the foundation, but it wasn't good stuff. It's a very fascinating passage. But I see Paul pointing in the direction of saying, okay, you've got the foundation of Christ and now you have the responsibility to build on it. And I'm loosely interpreting that or understanding it to, for culture to be at least a part of that. The buildup of the traditions, the values, the things that we care about the way we live, all of that I think is important pieces there. Another passage that is so clear, you could hardly miss it. So Matthew 13, what is commonly known as a parable of the sower, I like to call the parable the soils. Christians who are Bible readers know that passage well, the four soils and Jesus talking about them. The question I always ask in relationship to that parable is, okay, ladies and gentlemen, what do you have the most control over in the parable? You yourself. So the sower goes forth to sow, sows the seed. The variable throughout the entire parable is the soils. You change the soil, you change the productivity. My simple question is, what's the soil? I see the soil's culture. He goes on to give some examples of it, worry and this and that and the other thing and being taken up with the affairs of this world, he says, about one of the soils that, well, community can speak into that. Community culture actually can help to shape and form a young person who's growing up and older men, shape and form them, their mind and their thinking in relationship to these kinds of things. I'm firmly convinced we need to pay lots and lots of attention there. Your question here is church's responsibility in relationship to culture. Just think of the Sermon on the Mount and the ending passage again gives us a little hint here, chapter 7, 24 to 27 is one that says, look, if you're wise, you'll build on the rock. Doesn't say the rock Christ Jesus, but the literature there certainly points that you could think of it that way. So build on the rock while you're building what? A house and that house will stand. Sounds like 1 Corinthians 3 to me and then over here, if a foolish man, if he builds on, if he hears my sayings, Sermon on the Mount, and doesn't do them, he's like a builder who's building on the sand, and that house is going to go down when it comes under pressure. Okay, now think about that for a minute. If you had no other piece of the Bible except the Sermon on the Mount, did you heard that comment and then you'd say, well, what did he say? A group of people who goes back there and actually lets the sayings of Jesus affect there and I'm going to use the term culture because remember, that's their love values, the array of things that they've embraced is important. Just take a couple of examples. If you think about Jesus' comments on lust, when he says, look, if a man looks, it's not just a question of what you do, it's what you think, and a strong words there. Okay, if you step back from that and say, if that's true, then how should we order our lives? There's obvious things that a community would begin to adopt and think about if they're saying, okay, if Jesus said it, we should pay attention to it. And he uses it in terms of do them. Well, do what? Well, not to get into this lusting business and actually go the other direction on honoring women and caring for the abused and so forth and so on. So culture is affected if we actually take that to heart or one that maybe steps in our toes a bit. So Jesus said in this sermon of the mount, well, don't lay up treasures on earth or moth and rust have corrupt and about to say, well, what's the application? So what actually, how do we live? And I think as we wrestle with those kinds of passages, there's actually cultural norms grow up. Take a vehicle, for example. So a serious look at that question that Jesus lays out there, don't lay up treasures and so forth and so it means that I am at least going to ask the question. Well, how much money should I spend on a vehicle? I'm not here to set a number on that at all. But as I actually raise that question and then I go out and buy a vehicle, well, then my grandson comes along and he says, well, grandpa fill in the blank in some fashion, that decision I made to do that following the command of Jesus or the sayings of Jesus and trying to work that out has a cultural influence on the neck and by and by there begins to be this is kind of the normative thing that we do. I just don't make any apology for that at all. It's like from what I can tell, I hear the New Testament saying that the church has a responsibility to proactively create culture. And for whatever it's worth, my observation is far too many people spend too much time reacting to culture and don't bother to sit down and ask how am I going to build it and just asking. So what am I contributing? What do I mean? What am I contributing? What am I contributing to my community's understanding of, let's just insert a word, modesty? Not what's the role? What does our role book say? But what am I? How am I contributing to the definition that, let's say, of modesty? And you could use a whole lot of other terms as well. There it's a totally different set of questions than the legalistic questions that can ask culture has the option, the possibility of carrying values, traditions and practices forward in a non legalistic manner, we could make a role, for example, to say, well, we think this is what modesty is. But if, on the other hand, we as a culture work hard as a group of people, we work hard at living it out. And a young lady growing up or a young man growing up sees the cultural norms, they have a different framework than just a legalistic framework that says, here's the role. Please do it. Rather, it sees the loves and the values of a generation being carried forward by a group of people. And to me, that's a very different thing. It's what's giving me a little bit of hope on this legalistic issue that maybe if we paid more attention to culture and worked hard at it, we could avoid some of our, I don't know, our, we feel like we have to fall back on some kind of a role to solve a problem. So on a previous episode that you recorded with us several years ago, we were talking about an article you wrote a while back called The New Conservatives. And that video is still on YouTube or on the podcast if somebody wants to go listen to it. In the YouTube comments, somebody named Michael left a comment that I think connects with this conversation. And I would be interested in hearing your response to it. It's a bit of a lengthy comment, but I will read the whole thing. Michael says, I heard three phrases here in that immediately grabbed my attention. Creating an identity, structures that move things forward and building a culture. I have an interest in all of these, although not without serious concerns as to the author's actual meaning of them. I and others would likely love some clarification on these three points if that is possible at some point in the future. I have one primary concern. There are many things that we all could do to create community environment in the places where we live. That said, even if we were to follow precisely the scriptural record in Toto, our very practices could still be found to be devoid of life. The life of Jesus Christ among us. Does Jesus really call us as His children to build anything? An identity, a structure, or a culture, or rather just simply align ourselves with what He has already promised us He would build in and through His ecclesia. Remember this. The reason we have all the religious sectarianism today is a direct result of man attempting to build things for God. Sadly, those identities do not solely resemble or identify with Jesus Christ exclusively, but also with earthly structures that men have often incorporated, joined with earthly governments, named and even controlled themselves by various means. Let's not forget that this includes those under the banner of Anabaptists, and more specifically, Amish and Mennonites among others. This is better referred to as a divided allegiance, where our creations compete directly for the souls of men, their resources, and influence in society. There most certainly can be dangers that coincide with change, just as there are things we must relinquish in order to move forward. So Michael puts some words to concerns that I have, at times, also had. And I've often heard shared by others within our circles, both old and young, but maybe especially young. So I'm curious if you can respond to Michael, especially his question, does Jesus really call us as His children to build anything? An identity, a structure, or a culture, or rather, to simply align ourselves with what He has already promised us He would build in and through His emplicea. Yeah, that's an interesting perspective there. I certainly don't think that Jesus has forbidden us to build culture. I've already referenced the Sermon on the Mount and pointed out that you could hardly think of reading the Sermon on the Mount. And of then, as he says, at the end of the Sermon, we'll do these things without asking the question, well, what shall we do? How do we actually live this out? And so it would seem to me as though Jesus infers that he's going to build his church. And in fact, he says that quite directly. I personally then look to the epistles to see how that actually is going to be worked out. The shorter version of what I'm saying. So Jesus certainly does not forbid us to live and love and serve and build and says He's gonna build His church. I think it's left to the epistles to help us to have an understanding of what that's going to look like. If I could, I would just jump to His other question here that I think is related. He says that the reason we have all the religious sectarianism today is a direct result of men attempting to build things for God. I would question that assertion. I don't know that I would blame it on attempts to work out our soul salvation under the leadership of Christ and living it out in church life and so forth and so on. I think the lifeless church today is more associated with a hands-off approach. Just let everybody do what they feel like doing. I don't know that we should fight back tooth and claw against what's being called sectarianism here so much as how to learn from each other who do some things differently. I want to affirm, these are good questions. I don't think they're, I think they're good questions. I think they need to be asked. I want to be sure that it's understood. I don't want to just offhand dismiss the problem of sectarianism. That's not my point. We need to work hard at finding commonality with each other across the spectrum of Christianity. Would you say that building a culture is inevitable when you have Christians together who share a vision or a goal, working in cooperation, whatever that church may be, it's inevitable that a culture will form. So the responsibility is to think about how we do that well in a way that's honoring to God and lining up with his expectations for his church and being intentional about that. You hit the nail in the head. You hit the nail in the head. It's going to happen anyway. Don't let it just happen, create it. Thank you for joining us for this episode. We invite you to join our monthly partner program. Monthly partners are key to the financial sustainability of Anabaptist's perspectives. Partners also gain access to bonus content, including our exclusive podcast where we respond to audience questions and comments. Sign up at anabaptistperspectives.org.


Suspense. This is the man in black. Here again to introduce Columbia's program. Suspense. With us in Hollywood tonight as star is Mr. Otto Kruger, whose career on the screen and on the stage has afforded him a precisely equal number of appearances as a character on the right and on the wrong side of the law. Whether the man Mr. Kruger portrays tonight is devil or saint, we shall leave for you to judge when the play is over. It is called after-dinner story. The author is Cornel Woolrich, the radio adapter Robert L. Richard. And so with the performance of Otto Kruger as Mr. Hardecker, who told this extraordinary after-dinner story, we again hope to keep you in suspense. Your name, sir? Kinshaw. Very good, sir. Mr. Hardecker? Mr. Kinshaw, sir. Number one. Good evening, Mr. Kinshaw. Is this where Mr. Hardecker lives? My name is Lambert. Mr. Hardecker? Mr. Lambert. Number two. My name is Prendergast. I think I... Mr. Hardecker? Mr. Prendergast. Number three. Mackenzie's name. Mr. Hardecker? Mr. Mackenzie. Number four. One, two, three, four. So you're all here, gentlemen? Yes, sir. Then, suppose we go into dinner. And after dinner, I shall tell you why you are here, what I have in mind. In fact, I shall tell you in the form of a story. A sort of after-dinner story. Well, gentlemen, did you enjoy your dinner? Yeah, well, yes. Then if you'll excuse me for just a moment, I have certain instructions to give the servants. And after that, I shall rejoin you, I shan't be long. Certainly. Well, what did that crack me? Certain instructions to the servants. How should I know? I... I don't like the looks of the whole thing. Why all the mystery? Well, I suggest that you have patience, Mr. Prendergast. Mr. Hardecker clearly intends to tell us in his own good time. Yeah, and another thing. I don't eat in those fancy park having your joints as a room myself, but I've seen them in the movies. They always pass the food around to everybody. They don't just don't bring it out of the kitchen already on your plate and just hand it to you. What possible difference can that make? Well, I don't know, but I know it ain't right. Oh, none of it's right. Why does a man invite four perfect strangers to dinner? What is this thing he has in mind for us he keeps talking about? Well, all I know he says you'll make it worth a while, and I can use a little that worth your while stuff the way business has been lately. Obviously the connection between us is that we were all in that elevator a year ago. Oh, what of it? There's no mystery about that. The police cleared that up the very next day. Maybe Mr. Hardecker doesn't think so. Sorry to have kept you gentlemen. Now, suppose we get down to business. And Mr. Hardecker, none of us wish to seem rude, but we were just wondering what this business is all about. You have had, uh, you had come to the obvious conclusion, of course, that it has to do with my son. Well, yeah. I don't see why we're, uh, we're all sorry, naturally, but that's all over and done. Yes, uh, almost. But there are one or two little details that I thought you gentlemen might help me to clarify. Oh, well, yeah. Fine. Well, then if you don't mind, I know you must remember most of it, but it's almost a year ago. I'd like to go over the whole story from the beginning. Well, that's all right. Well, it was just about just before five in the afternoon on August 30th of last year, when the matter which concerns us here this evening had its beginning. And on that day, and at that time, all four of you perfect strangers who had never seen each other before in your lives, found yourselves for personal and business reasons of your own, and various floors of the Norfolk building in Midtown Manhattan, waiting for the express elevator to take you to the lobby. The first passengers were on the 21st floor. 21, going down, please. Express car, going down. There are now three men in the elevator. The operator, Mr. Ken Shaw and Mr. Lambert, who had gotten on at the 21st floor. 18, going down, please. Face the doors, please. Going down. Now there are five men in the car. Mr. Prendergas and Mr. McKenzie had entered the elevator at the 18th floor. 15, express car to the lobby. Going down, please. Say hello to Eleanor for me. You bet. Bye, Dad. Six men in the elevator. The last to enter, I had accompanied to the elevator door myself. He was my son. These things drop pretty fast. Too fast for me. This baby is moving. Look, you can't stop. We're out of control. Look out, we're gonna hit. Oh, I got a hole. Oh, I got a hole. Anybody got a match? My leg's broken. Get me out of here. I got a wife and kids. Somebody get me out of here. Get me out of here.  You're not the only one with a wife and kids. Has anybody got a match? I've got to get this door open. Yeah. Yeah. I don't have it. Why would a suffocate in here? These things are practically airtight. Where's the operator? The operator, he's over here. I can feel the braid on his coat against my hand. And what about it, bud? I've got a match so I can see what I'm doing here. Hey, operator. He's dead. Dead? Why doesn't somebody come? What's the matter with him? Why did they come? Pipe down, will you? Pipe down. Yeah, I got it. Yeah, we'll get a little air anyway. There's a light up there somewhere. Yeah. I can hear voices. Yeah, you hear them? Help! Help!  They know we're down here. Yeah. I wish my leg didn't hurt so bad. Come on, let's see. I'd try wrapping your shirt around it tight. May stop some of the pain. Thanks. Easy. Nothing. Just sit and wait. That's all. Why don't they hurry? What are they waiting for? Why don't they hurry? Take it easy. Take it easy. You could be worse off. Worse off? Yeah. Like this poor guy. The operator. He's dead. And so you waited. Six men, five living, one dead. I know how it must have been for all of you. The minutes dragging by. They're in the darkness with nothing to do but wait. How's your leg? It's better. How long do you suppose we've been down here? That's hard to tell. Maybe they think we're all dead. Maybe they're just taking their time. Come on, worry. They heard your holler and all, right? But I... Gee, they're poor guys. I wonder if he had any kids. The operator? Yeah. I often wonder sometimes what would happen if one of these things ever slept. Well, now you know. I'll never ride in one again. So he's gonna walk up 68 stories to the Rainbow Room. I don't go to the Rainbow Room. Oh, I'm certainly glad my father didn't get on this car with me. He was going to, but he changed his mind. Wish I'd changed my mind. You know, if I hadn't gone back to make a phone call, I'd have been on another car. What's the use of wishing? It's happening. Here we are. Listen, there they are. They're going to get us out. Hello. Hello up there. Hurry, can't you? Hurry! Yeah, one guy's dead. Look at that light up there. A settling torches.  What a racket. I'm nearly deaf already. Listen, you guys, we're coming through, see? Watch out for spots.  I never need those things made so much noise. It's because we're close in. Oh, no! What was that? I don't know. I thought I heard somebody holler. Yeah, so did I. Must have been one of those guys up above.  Well, don't look at them. They will blind you.  They couldn't have. They're dropping down. Did you see it? It was awful bright. Oh, just a reflection. Don't look at it. I, I guess, I guess they got it cut through. Oh, yeah. They couldn't have stood much more of that.  It won't be long now. Stand clear down there. I'm going to jump down. Yeah, cop. And no cop ever looked lovely. Pass them ropes down now. Okay, hold it. All right. Who's first now? Who's the worst heart of your daughter? How about this fella? And that's the operator. He's dead. Hey, look, those other two guys have both passed out. Yeah, shocking, yes. Officer, I've got to get out of here. I feel pretty bad. Hey, hold your horses. There's nothing wrong with you. But I... That man's got a broken leg there. Who's got a broken leg? I have, I think. All right. Can you sit in this rope sling here? Oh, sure. Now, hang on. We've brought your hand. I'll be all right. Okay, pull him up. Well, so long, fellas. Take care of that leg. Thanks. Yeah, thanks. My name is Lambert. And mine's Mackenzie. Maybe we'll run into each other sometime. Yeah. Well, so long. All right, let me have that rope now. Well, who's next now? Maybe you better take those two guys that passed out. They might be hurt. Well, sure. How about this young fella? Sure. He's got a little blood on him, hasn't he? He has that. Glass from the light fixtures, I guess. Well, I don't think he's serious. Hmm, you don't, eh? No, he seemed to be all right. Well, whatever he seemed to be, he's not now. This man is dead. Dead? Oh, but he can't be... Look here, my lad, you don't seem to realize that you've come through a pretty serious accident. No, but he can't be dead. We heard him talking just a few minutes ago. Isn't that right? Yes, I heard him. Well, sure. He was talking. He was here in the dark. He said something about being glad his father wasn't on this elevator. I can't help what he said or what you heard him say. This man is dead. My son, who had survived the original accident without apparent injury, was dead. You gentlemen were more fortunate. You lived.  About 2.30 on a Friday afternoon. The last to arrive was Mr. Lambert. Hey, how's the lane? What are you doing? Mr. Lambert? That's right. I'm Chief Inspector McMahon. How do? Just take a seat, sir. Well, we're all here now. To Ken's home, under gas. Yes, that's me, Mr. Lambert. Yes, sir. Well, now, as I told each of you over the phone, I won't keep you very long. I just want to ask a few routine questions about that business of the elevator the other day. Well, what's the matter? Something phony about it? Not for our money. It's an open and shut case. Suicide. Suicide? Yeah. You mean the operator wanted to buck himself up, so he could... Oh, no, no, no. Not the operator. He died of a fractured skull. A young hearticure we're interested in. His father had been raising a row, so we said we'd investigate. But the... I still don't get it. A Wesley hearticure was killed by a 32-caliber bullet through the heart. You couldn't have happened. You mean he killed himself right in that car with all of us? What else? He wasn't shot when he walked in and he was dead when we brought him out. Unless one of you killed him. Oh, no, no, no. Any of you know him? No. Oh, well, there you are.  But it don't make sense. What don't make sense? Well, I mean, a guy shooting himself in an elevator with four other people that nobody didn't even know it. Any of you hear the shot? Not before they started the blow torches. I guess we're to that. Couldn't have heard one anyway. All right, see. Hey, wait a minute. Did you hear something? No. But Mackenzie, remember I said when I was laying on the floor of the elevator that I thought I saw a spark from one of those blow torches that went across the car instead of falling down? That's right. Anybody else see it? The blow torches were absolutely blinding. You couldn't see a... How about you, Mr. Kenjo? Oh, I'm afraid that I fainted or something silly like that. I'm not a very strong person. Well, that would probably be the gunshot all right. Nothing very mysterious about it. The gun belonged to young Hardaker, licensed in his name, and had only his own fingerprints on it. Well, maybe I shouldn't ask, but why did he do it? The official verdict is suicide while of unsound mind. You seemed all right. He talked to us perfectly sensibly just before it happened. Just goes to show. You never can tell, Kenjo. Oh, he'd always been nervous and highly strong. We got that out of his father. The strain of being down on that black pit was just too much for him, that's all. Oh, what a terrible thing to break down just as we were about to be rescued. Yeah, if it's too bad. Boys seem to have everything to live for, too. But we find that sort of thing all the time. The noise, I suppose. I've read of cases of nervous breakdown caused by noise. Yeah, that's it. Well, I guess I don't need to keep you gentlemen any longer. I'm certainly glad there were no complications. Oh, don't worry. If one of you had anything to do with it, you'd be back in the cell right now. That was almost a year ago. Last week, each of you received a phone call from me. I can well understand and sympathize with the fact that you were somewhat astonished, perhaps a little suspicious of what you heard. I don't doubt that most of you debated at some length in your mind the advisability of accepting my invitation at all. You, for instance, Mr. McKenzie, you are married, as I remember.  I phoned your home, I believe, at about 8.30 last Monday evening. Yes? This is Mr. McKenzie speaking. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't seem to find you. Oh, of course, Mr. Hardikin. Well, frankly, I don't see the point. You don't know me, I don't know you. Yeah. Yeah, I see. Well, all right, Mr. Hardikin, I'll be there. That's a funny name. Who was it, dear? His name is Hardikin, the father of that boy who killed himself in the elevator last year. Oh. Well, what do we want? He wants me to come to dinner with him on Saturday at his home. Well, how lovely. He's a very important man, isn't he? Did he ask both of us? No. As a matter of fact, he's asking the four men who were in that elevator with his son when he died. What a strange idea. It seems sort of gruesome to me. Yeah, that's what I thought. Didn't he say anything? Oh, he said quite a lot. Well, what did he say? Well, just thinking. Oh, now please, Steven, don't sit there and be so tandalized. And what did he say? Well, he said something about his son's estate. Seems his son had quite a lot of money in his own right. The old man said he didn't need it, and he weren't any other relations. Well, he sort of hinted that he thought it might be a good idea to split it up between the four men who were with his son in his last moments of life, as he put it. Why, Steven, how wonderful. Oh, why aren't you excited? How much is it? You suppose it's a lot of money? I don't know. It might be several thousand dollars. It might be several hundred thousand dollars. Oh, Steven, what's the matter with you? Well, just such a crazy thing to do, that's all. Don't see that that makes any difference if a man wants to do a nice, kind, generous thing. Look, honey, if it was generosity, he'd give it to charity. But with a sort of memorial to his son, he'd, well, he'd set up a scholarship to build a hospital or something. Well... The old man was pretty broken up about it when it happened. I remember reading something about his being in a sanitarium for a while afterwards, and he never did believe the verdict of suicide. The police has much as told us that at the time. How do I know he doesn't think one of us killed a boy? That's absurd.  Oh, why that? Maybe he thinks we all did it.  I hadn't thought of it like that. Perhaps you ought not to go. I already said I would. Oh, I think he might... Maybe it's on the level. Steven, do you still have that gun we used to have in the works at the bank? Yeah, I have it then. I think you ought to take it with you Saturday night. I think you've got something there. I think that's a very good idea. And so, gentlemen, I'm quite gratified that you all saw fit to accept my rather unique invitation and that we are all here together this evening. By the way, Mr. McKenzie, I'm afraid I must ask you to give me that gun that you brought along. So that's it. And, Mr. McKenzie, you will notice that one of my servants who is standing in the door directly behind you has got you covered, is the phrase, I believe. Okay. Thank you. How did you know? Why the butler sort of patted all your pockets when you removed your coats. But besides that, I've spent most of my waking hours during the past year looking into the backgrounds of all you gentlemen. So I was right about this set up after all. Now, look here, Mr. Hardecker. I'm here tonight in perfectly good practice. I even cancel a very important business appointment. With Mr. Joseph Donahue of Celluloid Products. All right, let's cut out the mystery. What's this all about? What's the idea? One moment, gentlemen, one moment. I didn't ask you up here on the false pretenses. I fully intend to divide my son's estate precisely as I suggested over the phone. I sincerely hope you don't resent my investigation of your backgrounds. Well, gee, Mr. Hardecker, my background isn't much, I guess. Perhaps we all owe you an apology, Mr. Hardecker, but you must admit the whole thing's been a little strange. It has indeed been very strange. I think, however, that that phase of the matter is about over. Now, before we get down to business, there is one detail that I'd like you to help clear me up. Come on, sir. Can I bring it in now, sir? You please. Is that well mixed? Yes, sir. In the center of the table. Thank you, Johnson. Now, please see that we are not disturbed on any account whatsoever. Yes, sir. Jane, that looks good. What is it? Oh, it's got quite a number of things in it. White of egg, mustard, milk. It sounds like an antidote for poison. It is an antidote for poison. A what? Gentlemen, there is a murderer in this room.   The coroner's verdict was suicide. This is not a discussion, Mr. McKenzie. This is an execution. I'm getting out of here. There is a man with a gun outside each door. You'll find them very unreceptive to that idea, Mr. Prendergat. Sit down. He's got us. Well, I... The only thing we can do is try to talk a little sense into it. I'm not open to arguments, Mr. McKenzie.  I know who that man is. It's taken me a year to find out, but I now know. The food that man ate tonight was poisoned. Yeah, never. In ten minutes, he'll drop dead. You can't take the law into your own hands that way. Unfortunately, the law demands a very specific type of evidence. The police, whom I consulted repeatedly, do not believe it possible to get a conviction on the evidence I have. And therefore, the conviction must come tonight. Wait, you wouldn't dare. I wouldn't kill a man in cold blood that way, but... There is an alternative, Mr. Prendergat. It is there in the center of the table. The antidote. The murderer may either confess his crime by drinking the contents of that bowl, or he may keep silent and go to his death here tonight. Privately executed for what cannot be publicly proved. They could send you to the chair for that. I am quite aware of that contingency, Mr. Crenshaw, and quite willing to accept the consequences. But the murderer will have gone to his death before me. But how do we know you poisoned the right? The murderer knows, Mr. Prendergat. The rest need have no fear. Hey, I think the guy's crazy. Maybe he poisoned all of us. Look, Mr. Hardica, this whole thing is insane. Nobody killed your son. As to that, we shall shortly see, Mr. McKenzie. The man who killed my son has approximately seven minutes to live. It's me. I know it's me he's poisoned. My whole insides are on fire. It's me he's poisoned. I don't fall for it unless you're sure. The whole thing may be a gag.  You know, I don't feel so good myself. Me neither do I. Probably just indigestion. After dinner, a story like this is enough to give indigestion to a horse. No kidding. Hey, I suppose this guy's a maniac.  Listen, Mr. Hardica, let me just tell you this.  It's the last thing I do. I can't stand it. Mr. Hardica, I didn't do what I swear. I didn't do what I swear.  Five more minutes. Hey, I feel awful. Maybe we all ought to take some of that stuff, just in case. Yeah, that's it. We'll all take it. Yeah, we'll take it first. Unfortunately, gentlemen, there's only enough antidote for one. Even if you're right, Hardica, this is no way to do... This is my way.  Perhaps. Have you a son? Kensha! Will it save me? Well, gentlemen, now you know. All right. All right, what do I care? I killed him, and I do it again.  In school, in college, he never even knew that I existed. He was too good for someone like me, and he had everything. Money, everything, and he married the girl that I loved. She didn't know how I felt. I never told her. And then she died. In the morning, they said. She wouldn't have died. She hadn't married him. So I killed him. I saw him, didn't see anything. And then it fell. It fell. It was as though God had delivered him into my hand. He came to me there in the dark. I choked him.  I clapped. Oh, look. Help him, somebody, help him. Here, pull up his head, here. Never mind. It didn't work in time.  No, I didn't.  Yes, I know. But what he drank was not the antidote. It was the poison. The poison?  I only knew that one of you must have, and so Robert Kenshaw convicted himself in front of all of you, and was his own executioner. But then he was never poisoned at all, until... Until he drank the contents of that bowl. Gee. I shall divide the estate, gentlemen, as I promised. Meanwhile, you may call the police if you like, that the law and divine providence decide whether this man died by my hand, or by the guilt that lay upon his own soul. So closes after-dinner story by Cornel Woolrich, starring Otto Kruger. Tonight's tale of suspense. This is the man in black who conveys to you Columbia's invitation to spend this half-hour in suspense with us again next week, same time, when our star will be Gene Lockhart, in the suspense play called Statement of Employee Henry Wilson. The producer of suspense is William Spear, who tonight also directed the broadcast, and who with Lud Gluston and Lucian Mollewick conductor and composer, and Robert L. Richard, the radio author, collaborated on tonight's suspense. Make a note on your calendar at the beginning December 2nd. Suspense will come to you on Thursday evenings at 8 p.m. Eastern wartime, 7 p.m. Central wartime, and 6 p.m. Mountain wartime. Remember, suspense will be heard on Thursday nights beginning December 2nd. This is the Columbia Broadcasting System.


Dear students, in this module we shall discuss the fast direct neurotransmitters in detail. There are two major types of neurotransmitters that act as fast direct neurotransmitters. These are fast excitatory synaptic transmitters and fast inhibitory transmitters. First we shall discuss the fast excitatory synaptic transmitters. These neurotransmitters act by opening the ion channels in the post-synaptic cell membrane. These neurotransmitters include acetylcholine, glutamate, and aspartate. We shall take acetylcholine in detail. Acetylcholine is the most familiar fast acting neurotransmitter. In most cases, it acts as an excitatory neurotransmitter. In some cases, it also plays an inhibitory role. For example, in the heart, it inhibits or slows the rate of the heart by controlling the vagus nerve on the peripheral sympathetic nerve endings. Dear students, those neurons that produce acetylcholine as neurotransmitters are called cholinergic neurons. In this way, the neurons are found in invertebrates and vertebrates. We shall discuss the mode of action of acetylcholine. When acetylcholine is released into the synaptic cleft, it binds to the ligand-gated acetylcholine-specific receptors in the membrane of post-synaptic cell. As a result of binding of neurotransmitters, acetylcholine, the sodium and potassium ion channels open briefly. As a result, an excitatory post-synaptic potential is produced in the post-synaptic cell. Dear students, When acetylcholine is released into the synaptic cleft, it is necessary to remove it from there. For this purpose, an important enzyme in the synaptic cleft is acetylcholine aspirase. It is abundantly present. This enzyme causes the termination of transmission at cholinergic synapses. To end the transmission, acetylcholine is hydrolyzed in the acetylcholine and acetate. The acetylcholine that is produced is actively reabsorbed by the pre-synaptic membrane. This is recycled again because it condensates acetylcholine with the enzyme and produces acetylcholine molecule again. Dear students, acetylcholine-st-raise-enzyme activity is extremely important for the functioning of the nervous system. Some poisons, some insecticides or nerve gases block the acetylcholine-st-raise activity. The result is that acetylcholine is collected in the synaptic cleft. As a result, it causes continuous stimulation of the post-synaptic cell. It results in the disruption of neuromuscular system. That can even cause death. Dear students, some molecules with acetylcholine, whose structure or function is similar, bind with acetylcholine receptors. These molecules mimic any neurotransmitter, meaning copy and copy it. These molecules are called agonists. There are three major agonists of acetylcholine-carbacol, nicotine and mescarine. These three agonists of acetylcholine can activate the cholinergic synapses. Now we shall discuss the antagonists. The molecules which can block the action of a neurotransmitter are called antagonists. Acetylcholine is an antagonist of acetylcholine, D-tubo-cororain. This molecule is found in a poison, which is called South American Blodart Poison Cororain. This poison blocks the transmission of the cholinergic synapses on the cholinergic synapses. Dear students, after acetylcholine, the second major neurotransmitter, which acts fast and direct, is glutamate. Where acetylcholine is the most common neurotransmitter found on neuromuscular junctions, glutamate is the most common excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain of vertebrates. Insects and crustaceans, glutamate plays a fast excitatory role in their neuromuscular junctions. The third most common fast directly acting neurotransmitter is aspartate. It acts as excitatory transmitter in the ventral nerve cart. It is produced in the mitochondria from where it is transported to the cytoplasm of the neuron and then packaged into synaptic vesicles. The reason for this is that it makes an excitatory inhibitory pair with glycine in the spinal cord because of which different action potentials are either excited or inhibited. These neurotransmitters always work in the form of pairs. Dear students, now we shall discuss the fast inhibitory transmitters. These are glycine and gamma amino butary acid that is GABA. Glycine is secreted mainly as an inhibitory transmitter in the spinal cart. It always acts as inhibitory neurotransmitter. There is no such example in which I play an excitatory role. The second inhibitory fast acting neurotransmitter is gamma amino butary acid. This plays inhibitory role in the vertebrates central nervous system. It forms an excitatory inhibitory pair with glutamate in the brain. It is also released at the inhibitory motor synapses, incrustations and anilates. It produces inhibitory post-synaptic potentials by increasing permeability of chloride ions.


So for anybody joining us, this is Senate Education. It's Tuesday, the 25th of August, remote hearing still during the pandemic. We're back now until we pass a budget, which Tim said this morning, the drop dead date was the 25th of September, but he left open the possibility that it might be actually shorter than that. So I'm personally thinking that we probably do go right up against the 25th, so call it a five week session. So, well, I would say that recent history bears it out. Or is that a realist? Yeah, although if they do get the budget done, I could also see nobody wants to prolong the session any more than it has to, so maybe we'd get a few days earlier than that. But just to say what I just said in a few more words and with some reasons attached. So I wanted to wait and hold off on planning an agenda for a couple of reasons. First of all, I'm not sure if you guys got the memo from the pro tem about listing the bills that he and the speaker had agreed on working on. Now, I think that must have just gone to chairs. I think so too. Just to strip it for our purposes down to education, they agreed on one bill that would not definitely, but they think should go through. And that is S226, which is statewide healthcare bargaining changes. That's not even in the house education. That's in their economic development, military general affairs committee with Tom Stevens. So that's the only bill that made the list. In other words, everything else that we've sent them, they don't plan to act on and everything else we've sent them will die for that reason at the end of the session. So that doesn't make me happy, honestly. I feel like we worked very hard on a number of bills before the pandemic, getting them out before crossover. But then after the pandemic, we continued with a normal pace to get them two or three other bills. The agreement between the state board and secretary French will go by the wayside because they don't wanna pursue that bill. Then the only other thing I'll say is that at the bottom of this memo, there was a group of things that were labeled undecided. And it wasn't immediately clear what that meant, but I took it to mean that it would be things that we could decide not to work on if we didn't want to. So there was nothing of ours on the undecided list. There were two things that the house has been looking for. One is their school construction evaluation bill, which we had done some testimony on. So that's in the undecided category and it has in parentheses, a little note that says possibly in the budget. So I think what House Ed's thinking is, is that they might try to secure the appropriation for that, which you remember was a pretty hefty price tag. Jim, do you happen to remember what the cost was on that? Isn't one and a half million? Yeah, so I was in that box, it was Becky's bill. Okay, I think Debbie's around right. It was one point something. So my memory is that we liked that bill, but we sort of didn't like the timeline on it and we also didn't like the fact that not any of it went to districts. It was all money for consultants. But with that said, I would sort of tentatively propose that if the house wants to go forward with that, we indicate a willingness to work on it. It's a little tough, we just got out of the finance meeting, there's gonna be a significant deficit in the Ed fund. It's a little hard maybe to make the argument that we need to spend 1.5 million doing an evaluation when we already know that there are massive construction needs, but I'm willing to have the discussion if nobody's adamantly opposed. And I should put in one more caveat. Given the one way pipeline that has established itself, in other words, we've been sending things to the house, nothing that we've sent to the house has come back to us. So I think it's not a good lookout for us to initiate legislation and pass it again to the house. So what I'm trying to indicate to Representative Webb is that we'd prefer it if they send us legislation and I gave her my word that we would act immediately on whatever they do. That's not a promise to say that we would pass it, but we would take it up immediately because when we send them something, it's been months or weeks at least before they even take it up and then they haven't moved on anything. So I'm envisioning that the couple of pieces of legislation that may pass this abbreviated session that those would start in the house so that we can be sure that they're willing and able to act on them. Senator Parr. So, I mean, I'm probably gonna sound obnoxious here, but they've been meeting throughout the summer. What do they do over there? Like what's Kate Webb doing? I take the fifth. I have zero understanding of what they do. I will just say that in general, the house has a different attitude that I've never understood. I don't know if you guys have ever gone to the wall, you know, the virtual wall of the house and looked at what bills they get in. They get in like 50, 60 bills from the house a year and they never act on any of them. Like none of them, zero. I don't know how house members put up with that. Well, it depends on the committee chair. I think Sharp and Kate have run that way in education, in economic development, my first term, the chair, actually both terms in the house, the committees I was on, we allowed every member of their five minute spiel. And then what we try to do is group, okay, these six deal with this topic. So like, let's deal with that. We deal with topics and pull the bills, but yeah, they haven't. I mean, Kate, I mean, I'll say it, but I think it's just been an app done and some of the stuff and being able to move anything. Well, I don't want to characterize personalities or lay a blame or anything because we just don't have time. So the only reason I say it is my tendency is usually to say these three, four things need to get done. Let's put them out, get them over to the house. But again, the very established pattern is that then they will just die. So school construction evaluation, I think they're serious about moving on. The other thing is districts without budgets. I've asked Brad James to update us on where things stand with districts. You remember we had a disagreement with the house. They wanted an inflated budget. We were willing to do level funded budgets and change the default language in the statute to match that. So the only reason I bring that up is that it was on the undecided list. My tendency and feel free to chime in if your attitude has changed personally, my tendency would be to stay with where our committee was, which is to say if the house was interested in changing the default statute to default from the previous year's budget, 100%, we would be interested in doing that, but we would not be interested in any inflated budgets for districts without budgets at this point. Because the- Are there still districts without budgets? I think there are a couple, but I lost track about a month ago. So I know South Burlington passed there's finally third try with a 1.6, I think, inflation over the previous year. So basically everybody's faced a very fiscally challenging electorate. People are not willing to green light increase unless there's a demonstrated austerity move on the part of the budget or on the part of the board. So like I say, it took three tries in South Burlington where people wanted to be sure that it was as lean as it could possibly be. So I think that being the case, our position is borne out to the extent that voters are not interested in an automatic, they were talking about an automatic 4% inflation back two or three months ago. Senator Hardy. Yeah, I guess I would like just to before I form an opinion whether new or old that we get testimony on where things are at. The two school districts in my Senate district that hadn't had their budgets passed actually have now passed budgets. So they passed on primary election day. So I think there were a slew of budget, school budgets that were up that day. So I guess I'd like to see what the current state of affairs is and see if that changes our position or not before I make up my mind. Sure. Yeah, and as I say, I've sent a request out to Brad and he'll probably send me a long email which I'll forward to everybody. And if we have additional questions, we can ask him. As I say, those two things are buried down at the end of this memo from Tim. It's very clear that he and the speaker didn't think these were high priorities and nothing else of ours made the list. These were both things that the house was more interested in. So then the other piece to lay out what I've got in front of me, Secretary French sent me a little memo with four potential tweaks. Jeannie, did you get that up on the website yet? Is it up on Thursdays? It is on Thursdays. Okay, if everybody can just take a minute and bring up. No, you can't get it until Thursday. I'd have to change the date. Oh, okay. Well, then I'll just summarize and we'll, Secretary French is gonna be with us Thursday and he's gonna present these ideas. One is to change ADM calculation in light of the pandemic. Everybody agrees that's necessary. The last I spoke with Representative Webb about it, she was of the opinion that that should wait until January. I don't see why we would wait until January because it's a simple fix and it's a demonstrable problem. So I know that Representative Webb and Secretary French are interested in changing the 175 days of the school calendar to 170. And I'm a little bit at a loss what the other ones were. There were a couple of other little pieces, more like things we'd have in a technical corrections bill. And Ruth, I remember back, a while back, you suggested a change in transportation, calculation also to preserve the rolling average from incorporating corrupted pandemic numbers. So I'm thinking this might be a place to stick that into because I don't think transportation ever did anything with that. Andy, did they know? Okay, so I'm thinking of that as, oh, I'm sorry, Jim, go ahead. I was just saying have in front of me if you want me to summarize for you. Oh, yeah, please. So first is to reduce the number of student days as you mentioned from 175 to 170 for the school year. And also to increase the teacher and service days, I think from five to 10. Second is to adjust ADM as you mentioned to make it not less than last year's count. Third is to enact a waiver of the online teaching endorsement. And lastly is to require the use of Australian ballot for school district meetings. Right, that was the other one. And so Secretary of French will explain these and give his pitch for each. And we can get some of the pros and cons. I've asked principals and superintendents for Thursday to comment on those. We'll take some testimony on them. Again, I'm hopeful that the house will send us the vehicle bill first, but we can take some testimony and begin to form an opinion on those things. At least three of the five seem like kind of no-brainer ideas. Australian ballot, I'd actually like to talk with Jeanette about that. She's great on questions of voting and all the unintended consequences that might occur. But can I just ask, is that what the fourth one? I've missed what Jim said, is that requiring an Australian ballot for a school district budget. Is that the fourth one? They're five, Rome. Oh, they're five. They're five. What was the fourth one, Jim? Major of the online teaching endorsement. Oh, yeah. Oh, they're two calendar. They're two, there's the teacher in service. Okay, I just counted them differently, but that's the Australian ballot requirement is one of them. Okay, thanks. And Jim, just looking ahead, could you take a look at that transportation calculation and what might be necessary to make sure that that's not adversely affected by radically different numbers in the pandemic? Oops, you're muted, Jim. Can you just please explain that what that is again? I'm not sure what that is. Ruth, do you wanna summarize for Jim what your issue was there? Yeah, and this was something that actually representative Conlin in the house flagged for me. And it's that our transportation aid, which is the aid that school districts get for their busing program is based on the number of students transported and since in the spring of 2020, buses were still running, but they weren't transporting kids. They were transporting food. It's question of whether or not that would count and there were still expenses, obviously those buses were still had drivers and gas and contracts and all that, but they didn't have kids in them. So I don't know, I talked to Secretary French, he had an idea of just adding more money or something like that, but it also could be a language change that would be temporary. And I think it's, there's a two year lag on transportation aid. So I guess just looking at the language and seeing what you think, I just don't want school districts in two years to get shorted on their transportation aid because of spring of 2020, not having kids and buses. You know, it's a good reminder. So kids are going back to school, but it's very possible that all districts, some districts, a few districts wind up having to shut down and go virtual again. If that's the case, we should make sure that because we're gonna be gone. So we should make sure that the changes in statute are framed the way our other ones have been so that during the emergency, nobody's disadvantaged by these calculations. So, and maybe it involves trying to think of what might be necessary if everybody has to go remote again that we're not thinking of because we're out of that, theoretically, we're out of that mode now. But if anybody in their thinking over the next couple of weeks comes up with something that might be a problem if we're gone and everybody goes virtual again, like take nutrition, that's obviously gonna have to ramp back up in the way that it did before. So we might have to think about those startup costs, which we did once that we might incur again. So anyways, that's the brief skeleton of the bill that the secretary suggested. A number of those pieces I know Kate is interested in, the remaining ones seem relatively narrow gauge, things that we could maybe spend a week working on. None of it seems all that difficult. So that's what I've got on my plate. Anything that you guys feel we need to be working on with the caveat that as Tim said, the emphasis is not really gonna be on writing legislation probably, it's more oversight and cares funding or federal funding directing that and oversight of things that we've already done. But that doesn't mean we couldn't write legislation if there was a clear demonstrable need for it. Any thoughts about anything yet to be mentioned? Ruth? Thanks. Well, I just wanted to put in a plug for the ADM count and making sure that we fight that battle if we need to with the house. After you left the finance meeting just now, I actually brought it up there and sort of made the pitch that we make sure we do that now, not later. The school districts need that information to develop their budgets in January is just too late for that. And you also mentioned school meals. This came up in the ag committee this morning too. There was allegedly some report that was sent while we were gone and I didn't receive it. Did you get it? I did, that's up for Thursday as well. Oh, the school, okay. So Secretary French is gonna speak to that. So Jeannie? Yes. So does that mean at midnight on Thursday morning people can see that? Yes, I can change the date or I can email it to the committee members. If you could change the date, that's probably the easiest. If you could change the, would that change the date of the meeting? No. Okay. Well, then if you could make it immediately available, that would be great. Okay. And yeah, it's basically blah, blah, blah. We have a lot of money left over. We have a lot of money left unspent. And I'm a little leery because if you remember in the finance meeting, there was a very similar frame like, well, we were late getting this money out and lo and behold, there's a bunch of it that didn't get spent. And we were late getting this money out and lo and behold, there's a much left. And then the governor is proposing that we hoover up all the money remaining and give it out in the form of gift cards and business grants. And I think, all things being equal, I'd be for that, but all things aren't equal in my opinion. I really think getting kids back to school is number one at this point, especially in this committee. So I wanna make sure that the secretary is serious about using the nutrition money for nutrition. As I say, let's say a month from now, everybody goes virtual again. If he's got 10 million left unspent, that money should plug immediately into getting everybody meals every day just like we did before. So other, anything? Oh, it's essentially my universal school meals balance. Yeah. I like that idea. So I wanted to ask a favor of Senator Hardy and Senator Perchlich. So I'm wondering if as we go forward in the next couple of weeks, if Ruth, you could just personally look into the nutrition side of it a little more than the rest of the committee, make sure that everything's going smoothly, just be giving us updates on that. And then, Andy, I'm wondering if on the HVAC, which now looks absolutely prescient, I have to say, if you could be updating us on that. And one question I have is, all the reporting that's been done on it, Vermont Digger did a decent story on it, but they didn't, they made it seem as though we had underestimated the amount of need. And we didn't, we were being careful in terms of what could get done by December 31st and the number of contractors available, et cetera. So if your sense is that any of that has changed, in other words, we know the need is greater. If it looks as though they might be able to spend more and get more work done than we thought, I would sort of doubt it, but if it looks that way, it would be helpful to know sooner rather than later so that we could go back to appropriations and see about upping the 6.5 million. Because I think there's general agreement now that that's a top three item in terms of best bang for the buck in terms of public safety. So if the two of you wouldn't mind just being a little more on top of that, and then I'll try to remember at each meeting if there's anything you have to update us on. Yeah, Andy. You want an update on Thursday? I can give you a tiny update right now. Yeah, yeah, let's hear it. Yeah, the contractors have been working with the schools. They've gotten a lot of interest when the reports came out and everybody wanted to get started right away, but unfortunately they couldn't get started because they needed the contract. And of course everybody was pointing fingers at everybody else, but I think EPT just got the contract signed so they could guarantee the contractors that they get paid if they started the work. So a lot of contractors were calling me and saying, I want to do work, but you know, EPT won't sign the contract. And I called the EPT and they said, well, the agency administration hasn't given it to us. So they may say it was just a problem with the feds. So unfortunately they're just getting started now even though we worked hard to get the money approved by July 1st at the end of August and this getting started, unfortunately. So I think it'll be harder to spend the money with the losing a month there, but I'll check in with them and see how things are going now that the contracts have started to flow. Okay. Yeah, I mean, that's the story across the board. What I heard in finance and that I've heard from leadership is that everything's been taking much, much longer. I mean, look at the emergency, the money for frontline workers that we okayed in the Senate. That was supposed to be an emergency measure that would get cash in their hands. And it's just like run this long meandering course, which is too bad. Other things that anybody has on their plate, it's not that we can't, you know, a week down the road or two weeks down the road get to work on something new. I just wanted to figure out how to apportion our time for the first couple of weeks. So on Thursday, Secretary French will be here he'll talk about that little grab bag of policy changes. He'll talk about the report on summer meals. And oh, I know, Alison Clarkson wrote me one of her constituents had highlighted a problem in pre-K and that was all around the need for a certified teacher and the inability to get a certified teacher during the pandemic. I mean, it's a problem normally, but then this person went on to suggest a couple of policy changes around private providers and how they might interact with the state and public providers during the pandemic. So I've told her we would schedule that witness and talk about, you know, one of the suggestions would be to waive the need for a certified teacher for so many hours, 10 hours a week during the pandemic. And so we can take testimony and figure out what we think, but that's on my list as well. Anything else? Yeah, Debbie and then Ruth. Yeah, I just wanted to say that just so that we feel like we've accomplished something. One of our bills, what about feminine hygiene products being put in schools is moving forward and help them welfare bill. And that's one of our priorities is with the contraception, handing out contraception to you. So at least we'll get one thing. Which is great, but I would rush to note a similarity. So S226, the healthcare bargaining, went to a committee other than House Ed and it is moving and the feminine hygiene product went to a committee other than House Ed and it is also moving. Everything we've sent to House Ed has died, so. Where bills go to die. Yeah, Ruth. Yeah, I just wanted to mention I emailed you about this and just as a heads up about some of the issues that some of us have been hearing about from teachers related to sick leave and remote being able to work remotely and childcare and potentially workers comp. And I believe that economic development is gonna be taking up some of those issues. And so to the extent that people are interested in those, I would just talk to that committee. I've been in back and talking with centers for rocking about it. So just to let you know that I think they're gonna at least take testimony. I don't know what they're gonna end up doing if anything but they're at least taking testimony. And Phil, do you know if joint fiscal committee approved the governor's childcare proposal yesterday for the school-age childcare? I don't think so. They did not. No, no, no, that was healthcare. We did that all morning long. There was a lot of questions about that. And fiscal didn't wanna do, didn't wanna kind of overstep. They approved something, just a tiny little portion of it that would be immediate but they don't wanna bypass the regular appropriations process. Okay. Ms. Tim and I had a meeting yesterday with the commissioner because I had some questions and concerns. So it's good to know that they sort of deferred it to your committee because it was a lot of money to approve without full. Yeah, we met. Senate Health and Welfare met and joined me with House Human Services this morning for what seemed like days but I guess it was only hours. Yes, and we still have more to talk about. Oh, excellent. Well, good to know that you're on it. Thanks, Demi. Yeah, I was glad to see that there was a $12 million proposal but yeah, definitely more work. Okay, so I will, I'll consider those the starting series of things that we'll be taking a look at. My thought is that we'd meet Tuesday, Thursday, 2.30 to four. I can't imagine that we'd need more than that for what we've laid out. Senator Kitchell will pretty soon start communicating with me about budget requests, CRF requests. I think the only thing we really have to do is figure out the $100 million. So not to minimize that task, but the $50 million is already out. The $100 million, I think part of the confusion, at least as I see it, is that that was always to include filling the hole in the Ed fund. I don't think anybody that I ever was in a meeting with thought that that $100 million would go to school districts as $100 million in spending. It was if we get complete flexibility, we would use this 100 million to defray the gap in the Ed fund. And then what was left over, we would spend for overages over the 50 million that we've already appropriated. So if we are in fact down to 66 point something million, and we were given magically flexibility, my thought would be that we would drop $65 million into the Ed fund. That would leave about 35 million. It sounds like the administration would then begin arm wrestling us for that 35 million. But it's clear, and I think Ruth pointed this out in the finance meeting, it's very clear that the 50 million is not gonna be enough. So of that 100 million, we have to make sure that if it's not gonna be used for the Ed fund, there is a big chunk that's still reserved for K through 12. And we'll, you know, worst case scenario, we would have to count on joint fiscal to divvy that out with us gone sometime in, you know, October, November. We could give each school district a gift card. 150 million. It has to be sent in their district. Exactly. Yeah, I don't know. There's something about the gift card. If they had called it something else, you know? Well, that's the end of this big problem. Cause like, you know, I live in Wilson and like, can I spend my $150 gift card at Best Buy? I mean, it's a local store for me, right? And if they don't have it in the store and I had to order it online, you know, wouldn't that be the same thing as spending it locally? Spoken like a true shitting in County person. Okay. Okay. Well, so that's all I've got for today. I've got enough to stay on the line and set up some agenda stuff with Jeannie. Just a heads up that as we go forward, if there is something that needs adding to our agenda, just drop me a line or at the end of our next meeting or whenever, bring it up. Otherwise we'll move on this stuff and I will try to mix in some oversight with working on these potential bills or pieces of language. So I intend to bring in superintendent's principles, the NEA, the administration, private providers, independent colleges, because I'd like to follow up on the testing side of what we did, the final piece of work we did. You know, reopening for higher ed, reopening for K through 12, we'll do a broad overview of oversight and these little legislative pieces and I think that'll be what we have time for. Okay, everybody, good to see all and I will see you Thursday on the floor, I think. Isn't that right? Good to know. Good to know. Wednesday, Wednesday at one. Yeah, it's Wednesday at one. See you then.


Hello and welcome to the mindfulness challenge day 33, we are now officially a third of the way through. You may be asking yourself today why is he wearing sunglasses because I want us to have a little bit of light laughter and fun today and realise that life is serious, it is challenging, it is all of these things but we always get through it and if we can do it with a bit of laughter, with a bit of love, with a bit of caring, with a smile then everything is that much easier. Today we're going to talk about and work on recognising our resilience through difficulty, recognising that we have this coping mechanism to be able to get through anything we can and the ability for me to sit here today with my sunglasses on feeling like some you know Hollywood superstar or Hollywood movie or something is fantastic, the reality is is that we we're still in lockdown but that doesn't stop us from seeing the happy side of things and seeing the things we can do and you know we don't give ourselves credit okay, we don't give ourselves enough credit and what I mean by that is is that if you follow this on day one you're on day 33 now that's amazing and this journey is much a mindfulness journey for you as it has been for me there's a mindfulness journey through you know the coronavirus and my journey as well as my experiences and you know it's been it's been an interesting ride but we've got through it, we've got to this point, we've got to day 33 and there's lots of things that would have unfolded and lots of things difficult emotions that would have that would have sometimes where you feel of course going to get a better of me but what we know is is they always pass and and we can make it through and then we know we can and and my sunglasses dictate that I'm seeing it through another lens another they rose tinted I don't know but it's about bringing mindfulness to the process of going through these hard times we know we can retrain and remove and build and recognize the awareness when things happen but build that resilience to it because now we can look at it and say yeah that's okay that's fine this is the situation around me and I've still got my breath I've still got my sunglasses everything is fine seeing clearly that you're capable of handling these difficulties these challenges and have the ability through mindfulness to be able to train your mind is something that's very special and congratulations on getting where you're getting today because you've got here if it's the first day you've watched congratulations it's the first day you've watched if it's the 15th day congratulations it's the 15th day but what would be ideal is I'd like you today to sit in front of your computer and make and dress yourself happy and get your sunglasses on because today is an official mindfulness sunglasses day because now we're going to recognize our resilience and recognize our the power that we have from within to overcome these difficult challenges these difficult emotions all of these difficulties because we know when we sit and we bring it to our awareness and we hold it with loving kindness and we can come away from it not not attaching ourselves to any emotion any fear any anxiety any situation we know that the truth is that this will pass when but it'll pass so today we're going to do quite a short meditation it's not that long but it is a meditation about recognizing your resilience to the situation's challenges difficulties fears and anxiety now for this I'm going to put a picture up and I want you to close your eyes and adjust your posture and become comfortable in the chair taking those deep breaths and grounding yourself and grinding your body feeling your feet on the floor you may hear my office door my spiritual room door is open so the wind is blowing through but that's okay because that's what's happening in this present moment you may hear my door rattle but that's okay because that's the wind that's what's happening in this present moment plant your feet firmly on the floor the body is in a chair or laying down and then when you get to that comfortable position and you feel the space growing around you witness the movement of your breath breathing in and breathing out and what I'd like you to do because we have the confidence and we know that we can overcome any challenge or issue or emotion that I'd like you to bring to your mind an emotion that you've experienced recently bring it to your mind but don't indulge in the story instead focus on the feeling focus on the feeling of the emotion and you can do this by tuning in first to the body when you put that emotion in your mind's eye and you focus on that emotion what does the body feel like when that emotion is present feeling the emotion in the body and investigate your capacity to just be with it what part of that feels overwhelming or unmanageable ask yourself if you're able to handle the feeling in this single moment and then continue to tend to the bodily experience examining whether you're able to be present with it or not take a few minutes move your attention to the mind and the mental state when this emotion is present what's your mind doing notice the thoughts that arise and the general feeling of the mind ask yourself if anything arises in is too much to handle it's too much for you but we know we can bring our attention and awareness to the emotion to the situation knowing that we can hold it with loving kindness with no attachment and we know that it'll pass we just sit in the environment in the situation knowing full well that you've got this notice again the thoughts that arise and the general feeling of your mind with this situation and again you can ask yourself if anything else is arising nothing is too much for you to handle because every time you feel emotion and a fear a situation a difficulty we can close our eyes we can see it we can step away from it we can hold it with loving kindness and we can breathe through the emotion and as we breathe through the emotion we feel it dissolve dissipate into the ground it serves you no more and again you got this we can get through this again and for the final two minutes reflect on the pains and difficulties you've gone through over your life the small frustrations the larger experiences of grief and tragedy think of all the things that have gone wrong in your life your shadow moments all of these things but realize just like i said earlier you're on day 33 of this challenge realize this moment and realize that you've made it today recognize your natural resilience remembering that you are indeed very capable of everything and anything that is thrown at you because now you have the ability to not attach yourself to these situations to change your relationship to the emotions to the fears to the anxiety to anything that's presented to you you can step away from it as a third party look at it hold it with loving kindness and breathe through it breathing it out and breathing it in and leaving it exactly where it is you now have all of the powerful tools you need to be able to mindfully live your day for a moment a moment from breath to breath and i'll leave you for a moment to allow these emotions and difficulties and grief and tragedy and things just to rise this may rise with it emotions it may bring tears it may make your heart race but you know that you can step away from that and you can look at yourself objectively with tears in your eyes you can look at yourself and stand away from your heart racing from your mind chatter you can hold it all there knowing that you are not attached and that you can hold it with the love and the kindness and just watch it through breathing through all of these situations you can watch it dissipate dissolve and fall away take a moment to do just that and when you're ready take a deep breath in wiggle your fingers and move your toes and come back into the room hi it's me again the Hollywood superstar um i hope you enjoyed that i want to bring a bit of light and laughter because we are a third of the way through but i also i want to recognize that all of the time the effort and everything you've done has brought a reward because you are here today your resilience your coping mechanisms your dedication to meditation and mindfulness means that you are capable of now any situation that gets thrown to you because you can bring it into your awareness you can hold it with loving kindness and you can breathe that emotion that fear that anxiety until it just fades away i hope this morning when you woke up on day 33 that you put your hand on your heart and you said good morning julian i love you good morning julian i love you but today i want you to say good morning julian i love you you've got this well done 33 days of a new life and a new way of thinking and a new way of being god bless you be love and give love and i shall see you on day 34 maybe not with the shades but certainly with some more infinite wisdom put a smile on your face have a lovely day take care god bless you be love and give love oh and don't forget i want to see pictures of you sat in front of your computer with your shades on today i see millions of them let's have a nice happy sunny day and let's support those people who help us support stay in stay home stay safe save lives but build your life take care bye


I feel like my life is music, like my life is a song now and I'm just living that song and noticing just like a song has different melodies and different parts to it. I'm experiencing the flow of life that way so it feels like my life is a song. So this is very natural for me to come to a conference, a festival, a celebration that has all of that and again that's just the state of mind. That's the best I can say. It does, like music just strikes that chord. It's fun to hear about singers who go on the stage and then don't perform a piece of music but that they literally channel it in the moment. And so that spontaneous, it's never been heard before so it can't be performed. Unless it's recorded, it oftentimes is just gone because it's not been captured in any way. But there's the joy in the being of it. I think of Abraham Maslow talking about this pyramid of hierarchy of needs and as you approach the very tippy-toped self-realization in which means and ends are one. So it's in the being and the expressing is where the joy is found. It's not in seeing it as something towards something else in the future. So that still is linear time involved in it and who we are doesn't have linear time involved in it. And the song of gratitude and the song of heaven, the father and son's thing eternally, is no time involved in it. So that's a nice context to remember. And we've had that in our strawberry fields festivals where you don't feel it's a performance. You feel totally merged with it and with everything. And that's where the joy and the gratitude is. You're not doing it for anything in the future. There's no concern, there's no thought of the future.


brought from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE. Covering EMC World 2016, brought to you by EMC. Now, here are your hosts, John Furrier and Dave Vellante. Okay, welcome back everyone. We are here live for day three of three days of wall-to-wall live coverage of EMC World 2016. This is Silicon Angles theCUBE, our flagship program. We go out to the events and extract the signal from the noise. I'm John Furrier, my co-host this week, Dave Vellante. We also have two Cubes, Stu Miniman, Brian Gracely on the second cube there. Double barrel shotgun of content here on the kickoff of day three. We're joined with special guest, Wikibon CTO, David Floyer, and analyst, David. Great to see you, Dave Vellante. Dave's, great to see you. Okay, so day three was upon us. We got a little preview here on the Cube, Dave, around some of the announcements. CJ decides emerging products group of EMC. He's the future. He's cloud native. We heard from the core business. Everything's kind of coming together. They made that bet a couple of years ago. They're playing it out on the horizons of Dell Merger. Your thoughts? Well, John, this is a classic case of a company who's jumping S-curves, right? I mean, you've got the core business, which run by Guy Churchwood. We had him on, you know, yesterday. It's a flat to down business. And then you've got the new S-curve, which is CJ Desai, all the new stuff. DSSD, Scale.io, Isilon, which is their bread and butter. So they threw that piece in to give some nice critical mass. Because if you run into that P&L, you want to have some kind of profitable business, which Isilon really is. So, you know, that challenge remains that the core business is really, really big and shrinking. And the new business is relatively small and presumably growing quite fast.  That is the ultimate question. That's the $64,000 or $64 billion question. $67 billion question, actually. That's the key, isn't it? And I think one of the most challenging things that I saw was them struggling slightly, MC, to move from a vendor, a storage vendor to a systems vendor. And that's where they are trying to get to within the enterprise. They need to take on HP, for example, full-on. They need to be selling the integration with the VCE products. They need to be selling the storage, of course, which they're very, very strong in, and equally selling the systems which integrate both the server, the network and the storage together, along with the automation and orchestration features that those are going to have to deliver. It's a start for them, but they're making a good start, but it's still a long way to go in terms of the process. It doesn't delve in VMware, sort of make that all happen. Well, it's interesting. I mean, you mentioned it yesterday on theCUBE, Dave, in one of the interviews at Widdish, but you talked about the low-level plumbing. A lot of the stuff's always been kind of plumbing for EMC, certainly mentioned systems. As David pointed out, that's kind of plumbing, but the theme here with Cloud needed is something about prepackaged applications going to the app, up the stack, if you will. So I got to ask David a question. David, you can chime in, that'd be fantastic, the theme here is modernizing. Okay, so what the hell does that mean now? You got low-level plumbing going on, it got all flash everywhere, but yet, they want to enable a DevOps world. Right. Okay, that's going to be very app-focused. And then we haven't even gotten to the whole IoT fantasy yet. So you get the fantasy of IoT, you have the traditional market today, emerging S-curve, David, you pointed out.  So let me tell you my view of it anyway, and what I believe EMC is working towards. There's modernizing in the terms of you want to make cloud-native applications. And that's clearly, you've got to use a whole different set of techniques, much faster time to market, et cetera. But equally, and just as important, you need to be able to update today's applications so that they can compete in that. Let me give you a concrete example of that. Data is most valuable a few milliseconds after it's been created. When you have got the answer to that question of, for example, in real time, should I accept your credit card or not? You're suddenly in Bangkok. So you need to merge that analytic data, which has spent a lot of time and effort using modern techniques to develop. You've got to merge that back into the production application to make that decision in real time on that production application. So by doing both, providing both types of a system, then you'll hopefully be able to really get the best value out of that data. As data gets older, it gets less valuable. So on the customer end, we're talking about replatforming. So what you just said actually hangs together, okay? So okay, let's take that to the next step.  Essentially you're talking about a replatforming of the enterprise. Is it possible? Is there a path? And what are you seeing, David, around this notion of positioning for the future and getting agile at the same time and not screwing up the existing legacy or traditional engine of these companies? So you have to essentially replatform while operating the business. What are the challenges? What is the path? So one of the challenges, so one of the challenges, there are a lot of challenges on that route. But let me tell you some of the things that are absolutely crucial to that. The first is automation and orchestration. So you've got to treat the true private cloud, which we've talked and investigated a lot about. We've got to treat it in exactly the same way as the public cloud and provide the same sort of capabilities. So that's one component of it. The other component of it is to use technology and in particular flash technology to increase the speed that which you can push data through the enterprise. Time to value for the data. So instead of in today's system having 10, 20 copies of data, you want to have one copy of data and then be able to use that data both for operational work, for development work and for the analytic work as well. So I think that too, this EMC world is always a lot about messaging. Member of cloud meets big data and modernize to me a couple of connotations. One is when I first heard, I was like, oh boy, I remember when Unisys was going through its mainframe modernization, IBM mainframe modernization. The second thing it strikes me is they're asking their customers, hey, modernize, buy stuff. The third thing is I think they're setting forth a sort of a messaging statement that is a challenge to the Amazons of the world. Because essentially what they're saying is look, the existing legacy apps, you want to modernize those, you're not going to move those to Amazon. And the cloud native stuff, we have a path for you. You don't have to go anywhere, stay right with us, same service, same levels of reliability and availability and the SLA that you've come to know and their responsiveness, et cetera. The question is, right, and there's a concern, right, to Dell merger customers have to be looking at, well, what should we do? You see HP at this event, poking at EMC, look at how the HP customers are getting value, et cetera, et cetera. Oracle's talking about taking advantage of this opportunity, this time of change. So the question is, what should the CIO be doing? So Dave, I think this is really a great question. And if I'm the CIO and I used to work with CIOs, we talked to a lot of CIOs with Wikibon and theCUBE, here's the answer. The best move is not to move. And what I mean by that is the worst thing you could do right now is go pick someone now. The customer is in control. I would do a bake-offs 10 ways from Sunday because if you're positioning for the future, we talked about replatforming, the best move is to sit back and let EMC and now Dell technologies come to the table bearing goods and gifts of, whether that's pricing, better platform, full bake-off. HP now has to come to the table. So the vendors need to show their worth. So I believe that the best move for the CIO is to sit back, get your teams together, have these architectural conversations that David was pointing out, some of those dynamics and do a bake-off. Well, you know, it's interesting, Alan Nance, when he came into theCUBE a couple years ago, essentially did just that. They said, our future vision is we're going to buy everything as a service. So they gathered all their vendors in and said, here's the requirement. A cloud contract. How are you going to meet it? And they basically did a bake-off. And if you weren't able, the guys who met it best became preferred vendors. The guys who met it became, you know, approved vendors. The guys who didn't meet it, they don't do business with them anymore. Right. So that's a great suggestion. Yeah. I mean, it's the best move. I'd add one extra piece to that, which is moving data around is expensive and takes a huge amount of time. So in general, where the data is, is where you should be doing your compute. You should be moving the compute to the data as much as you can. And if you take those two philosophies, which is wait and see, and don't move too much data around from where it's useful, where you want it, then those two strategies make a lot of sense. And Bert Lattomo just asked, what about Lenovo and this equation? I would say that you would treat the edge device as an edge-connected device, whether it's a connection with a computer, mobile, person, or IoT device. It's an edge device. It's software going to have the power on that. So we're day three. Let's talk in two or three years about where Lenovo is. They're going to take some time, but they're going to be a player. Well, EMC, talk about the connected nodes. And that's something that, I know Dave's been doing a lot of work on on IoT. But day three, it's all laying out. Traditional core emerging technologies, the replatforming of the enterprise is happening and the CIOs and the customers are in control. They're in charge. And we're going to be citing things to come, guys. Great, great analysis. Day three, wall-to-wall coverage on theCUBE here. At EMC Royal 2016, I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante and David Floyer, you're watching theCUBE. Looking back at the history of...


Let me now give you two examples of disruptive transformations that emerge from this science. The first one is called the global carbon law. We recognize that the only chance to really deliver a future within a safe boundary on climate is an exponential journey to decarbonize the world economy. It builds on a new scientific idea of connecting the science and what we have to accomplish with the Gordon Moore's law from 1960s, early 1960s, where Gordon Moore stipulated, you know, the founder of Intel, that as a self-fulfilling prophecy, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy that the speed of conductors and transistors on computers would double the speed on computers every 18 to 24th month, which is actually a path that we followed as an innovation pathway in the whole ICT industry, perhaps the most disruptive industry in the world. Well, we published half a year back something that we call the global carbon law, which we hope can be the equivalent of the Moore's law, and it goes as follows. This is what we have to accomplish to deliver Paris. This is a summary of the IPCC intergovernmental panel climate change curves. On the y-axis, you have emission of greenhouse gases in terms of carbon dioxide, and on the x-axis is time from today until end of century. The first insight is we have to bend the curve of emissions no later than 2020, and they're rushed down in a pace of six, seven percent reductions per year of emissions to become essentially a fossil fuel-free world economy by mid-century. But that's not enough. To achieve Paris, we also have to transform the brown line you may see there, which is agriculture, from being the single largest net source of greenhouse gases to becoming, in the next half of the century, the single largest sink of carbon. This is nothing less than an agricultural revolution. The interesting thing is, and we've been discussing it so much the last few days, we know how to do it. But that's not enough. The third insight is that, I'm sorry to say, there are no climate science scenarios that takes us to Paris that do not include what you see on the screen here, which is major investments in scaling of carbon capture and storage. This assumption that we can engineer ourselves to add sucking up carbon dioxide and retrofitting coal-fired plants to take up carbon dioxide. We have no proof that this is happening. I would argue that this is something that is very dangerous to rely too deeply on. But not even that is enough, because finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have to maintain ecosystem integrity. We have to be guardians of our ecosystems to maintain the resilience and the negative carbon sinks on land and in oceans shown here in green and blue. And if we do all of this, decarbonize energy system, transform agriculture, scale CCS, and really it becomes two words of ecosystems, we have a 66% chance of staying under two. So dear friends, it is a global sustainability transformation. We're in a disruptive point where we have everything to win to really take an integrated approach. Never isolate Paris to just being an energy transition. Now the exciting thing is that this gray curve you see there happened to translate into a carbon law, which is very simple. And it goes as follows. The carbon law equivalent of the Moore's law is halving emissions every decade can take us to Paris. It means bending the curve by 2020 at 40 gigatons, reaching 20 by 2030, 10 by 2040, and the residual of 5 by 2050. That pace, halving emissions every decade is the pathway we need to follow. This has now started to be adopted by businesses around the world. We're discussing it with governments. We're taking it to the Global Climate Action Summit that Jerry Brown, governor in California, is hosting in San Francisco in September, getting the COs of the large disruptive ICT industries to adopt the carbon law and spread it around the world with the idea of really making it a global manifested campaign journey towards halving emissions every decade. So this is one example of something that could really start taking us disruptively in the right direction.