Let's start with Richard Branson. That's exciting. So Richard Branson launched himself into space today, first, kind of first civilian, if you will, to go into into space on a, I guess it was a kind of a plane went up and landed incredibly cool, completely privately funded. They launched off of from New New Mexico and the United States. And there we go. Florida Nick is starting us off with $2. We could make this a $2 day and we could just get all of you to just do $2 and $2 and see how how much money we can raise at $2 a pop. So keep it up, Nick. Thank you, Florida Nick. So here we are. We've got a first man in space billionaire in space in eight days on seven days. I think Jeff Bezos is going up into space on Blue Origin. And what's interesting there is there's there's some really healthy competition between Blue Origin and Virgin Galactica, I guess it's called. And so far, right, we've seen the Virgin as one because because Branson got into space first, but it's interesting because Blue Origin announced that Jeff Bezos will be launching in seven days. And Virgin was supposed to launch just a test flight with some pilots today. But Richard Branson jumped in basically announcing that he wouldn't let Jeff Bezos be the first man into space. So some healthy competition there and therefore he joined the flight today and went into space. And now there's competition about what you define as space. So it turns out that Branson went something like 84 kilometers up and the United States defines the beginning of space as something like 84 kilometers. But the international body, some international body that regulates the stuff, defines going up into space as 100 kilometers. Jeff Bezos is going to go 100 kilometers. So the whole week, Blue Origin has been poo-pooing the achievement of Richard Branson by saying he's not really going to space. It doesn't really count zero gravity as much, you know, it's going to be a much shorter time and zero gravity. And it's not really a rocket, it's an airplane. And so there's this competition going on between the two from a marketing perspective, from a technology perspective, from a timing perspective. You know, and I find it cool to see. I think the idea of private individuals making it into space at their own expense is truly thrilling and exciting. And proves that even big capital ventures, even big ventures that take a lot of money can be done by private enterprise, that you don't need government to initiate every advancement. You don't need government research, government money, government funding to move humanity forward. It's actually pretty rare and pretty unusual that government is funding things that actually all the way push us forward. They might fund some of the basic research because they're the only funders today of basic research. They crowded out everybody else. But in terms of taking that basic research and turning it into something that is useful for human life, it's not what government does. And it's not what government is capable of. And even if the government stepped out of basic research, it's not like there'd be a hole there. And I think what Branson and Bezos are doing is showing us that private enterprise, private ambitions, private selfish, self-interested interests can move civilization forward. And space is the next frontier. It's phenomenal to see us breaking into space and what human beings can achieve and what is possible. I think every time these guys launch rockets into space and ultimately make that trip to Mars and put humans on Mars, these are massive achievements for human beings, for the future, for the advancement of technology, for the advancement of human ability. And it truly is fantastic and it's a slap in the face to the status to, again, think that only with government can we achieve anything. Victor Barati, thank you. He's continuing on the $2 a Christopher is going up to the 550 Canadian, which is what, four bucks or for something. U.S. attempting Christopher for your support. I really appreciate the support at whatever level you guys choose to support it. I appreciate it with its two dollars, two pounds, 550 Canadian, whatever is really great. So Branson is the first billionaire, well, he's the first civilian to fly into space in a civilian, in a privately funded civilian aircraft. And that is truly fantastic, the beginning of space tourism. And look, people are going to complain, oh, only billionaires can do this, only billionaires can. Yes, that's right. But what's the point from the perspective of the people? The point is that billionaires are first adapters of very, very expensive technology, but what happens over time? Because billionaires are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing this, because Branson has been willing to spend a trillion dollars in developing this technology. That technology is going to get cheaper. The more billionaires and the more gazillionaires or whatever the level of wealth they have. Sorry, Branson has spent a billion dollars, not a trillion dollars, he's not a trillion and a billion dollars to develop this technology. But the more they're willing to spend their own wealth, the more people are willing to pay Blue Origin and Virgin to take them into space. The more capital these companies have to develop this technology, to expand this technology, to make it cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. One day it won't cost a hundred million dollars to go into space, it'll cost a hundred thousand dollars to go into space and a lot more people will be able to afford it. And as that becomes more prevalent and more people are willing to pay a hundred thousand to go into space, the price will drop even further to ten thousand. And ultimately, it'll become affordable for many of us to go into space. And this is how advanced technology develops. This is how the first laser printers were fabulously expensive, only corporations could afford them. And as corporations were the first adopters and bought a bunch of them, providing capital, providing incentive to laser printing companies to develop the laser printer, the price of laser printing dropped dramatically. The same thing happened with computers, the same, you know, remember the supercomputer, you remember the mainframes, the many computers the digital had, only big corporations could afford that. But as they developed that, the technology developed, the incentives were created until we got the PC, until we got personal computers. So all of this allows for a dramatic decline in costs and brings that technology to all of us. So this is it's great news. It's a great moment, I think, for private space travel, for innovation, for private enterprise into other planets. And I'm excited by it. It's another step towards the ultimate colonization of Mars. And it would be phenomenal if the colonization of Mars happens by private entrepreneurs, rather than by governments planting flags. But it's by entrepreneurs figuring out how to make money colonizing Mars, how to make money, how to create wealth, how to create value by colonizing Mars. That is the goal. That is the achievement. And of course, by wealth creating by mining by by expanding the human scope of what is possible.  But this is great. And this is part of the beauty of what's happening is that people are complaining about billionaires not paying enough taxes. Good because it allows them to keep the wealth so that they can invest in these kind of companies. Government would swander this money, would waste this money, would throw down, you know, flesh it down the toilet onto infrastructure projects of roads to no way, bridges to no way. You know, wait and see what this infrastructure bill is actually got inside of it, all the pork, all the goodies, all the little favors to different districts and different senators and different house members that basically bright them into voting for it. Don't please federal government, don't invest in infrastructure and let private entrepreneurs invest in infrastructure and look what happens. We might go to Mars. So I celebrate the fact that Elon Musk and and and who's been in the news, Peter Thiel and Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson are not paying their quote fish of taxes. They're paying as little taxes as possible. They're keeping the wealth and using that wealth to advance civilization, using that wealth to move us forward. And yes, there are poor people in the world, but you know what? I'd rather see Branson's wealth going to creating jobs, going to moving civilization forward, going to new technologies, new achievements, new value creations. There will ultimately create jobs and lower poverty, ultimately. But in the short run, yeah, the left is going to the left and the right, I think, are going to complain bitterly about, oh, what's the point? We're going to Mars when there's so many problems over here at Earth, we should be confiscating all their wealth and redistributing it.  I love it that these guys, all these rich guys are so ambitious when it comes to space travel, ambitious when it comes to how to use their wealth. And it's moving civilization forward with it. Your particular values are not. That's the beauty of a free market. It doesn't have to be yours. It's not democratic. It's not what the majority wants. Mars looks a lot like Utah image, or he says, yeah, maybe, maybe we'll discover life on Mars constitutes.  And that's why it looks like Utah. For God's chosen people to choose Utah as the place to live in, particularly the flats and the desert in Utah. So I'm excited about bands and going to space. A week from now, we'll see Jeff Bezos going to space. So here's the question. Here's the question. How is this, how is, how are we going to keep the space travel safe? How are we going to make sure that these spaceships don't blow up? Well, one way to keep it safe, one way to keep it safe is to have the guy who's spending all the billions building these space rockets fly like the first one. Like they don't want to die. So you know that Branson and Bezos have put enough safety protocols into their spaceships to make sure that they don't get killed on their initial flights. So they have a very selfish incentive to make these spaceships, to make these planes, to make these rockets safe. So that's one way reason why they make it safe. What are some other reasons why as we develop this technology, launch people into space? Look, they're probably going to be accidents. One in X number of these rocket spaceships will cause some deaths. We've seen this in the past. We've seen this with NASA. We saw it with the space shuttle. We saw it with Apollo program. There is no such thing as zero accidents. There's no such thing as 100% safety. And this is the transition into the topic of safety, right? So there are always going to be accidents. And when they have accidents on these spacecraft, what are we going to do? We're going to regulate it. This government is going to step in and try to choke this and try to regulate it.  The beauty right now is there's very little regulation. These individuals are taking risks. They know the risks that they're taking. They're calibrating the risk to trade off for themselves based on their own personal values rather than some bureaucrats. And by doing that, they're advancing technology further. They're moving the world further ahead. I mean, it's amazing to me that it's okay for the government to calibrate safety, like in Apollo, because it's for the common good. So if a few people die for the common good, that's okay. We realize you have to take some risks for the common good with public money. We can have a 100% safety record when we do Apollo. But we got to get to the moon because JFK said we got to get to the moon and JFK was speaking for the common good of the American people.  But when it's individuals making decisions for themselves about the risk that they're willing to take or not to take, that's unacceptable. Then it's a job of government to make sure that it's 100% safe. Because why? Because their activities are not important. In a sense, their activities are fundamentally immoral because they're just pursuing their own values. They're being selfish. They're being self-interested in pursuing their own values and wanting to go into space and doing it for the fun and the enjoyment of it. There's no common good here. And it's the job of the government to protect us, to protect even people who know, to protect even knowledgeable people, even people who can make assessment of risk for themselves.  So one reason the space travel relatively safe is because the entrepreneurs themselves are flying. The pilots are flying. Pilots, very knowledgeable people, know a lot about the technology, know a lot about these aircrafts, these rockets. They don't want to die. Maybe they push pressure on the company to make it safe. What else?  Most of the people working in these projects have a sense of pride about them. Now, they're going to be some charlatans and we'll get to charlatans and how to deal with charlatans afterwards. But fundamentally, most people out there don't want to build buildings that collapse.  They don't want to build spacecraft that implode. They have pride in what they do. They have pride in what they create. Now, they all know, and this is really important, they all know there's risk. We all know there's risk. I'll get to other factors. We're just going through these. We're now going through all of them. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. All right. Before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show.  But at least the people who are liking it, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at yourunbrookshow.com. Support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for all, for the work, for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this.  You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified. So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.


So thank you to Martin Cook for inviting me here. I'm afraid I'm gonna be kind of podium bound because I'll be saying one of two controversial things and I need what other people have said to support me.  So I've got a lot of quotes and I can't remember them all so I've really gotta read them. I'm also not gonna have any slides because the subject doesn't really match it. So it'll just be me speaking. I'll speak for about half the time we have and then the other half will be Q and A but I'll try and make it interesting nonetheless. I gather Martin invites me to these things because he thinks I'll be provocative. So I will aim not to disappoint and I hope that what I say will stimulate discussion. I think it should do. So actually something reasonably interesting happened to me last time or second last time was in the United States and I was coming back from a conference in San Antonio and when I was at the airport checking in there was this guy at the check-in counter next to me so having an argument with the airline clerk and he didn't want to pay for his luggage which for checking luggage. And he said, hey, I'm a military reservist. I shouldn't have to pay for my luggage. And she said, well, yeah, but you're traveling as a private citizen. You pay and he looked at me and went, that's not right. And I didn't want to be rude so I just kind of smile, you know. But privately I was thinking like, who does he think he is? Like why should he not have to pay the same as everyone else has to pay just because he puts a uniform on at the weekend? And this isn't an isolated example but there's various other incidents I know about this. So for instance in the Canadian newspapers in my local Canadian newspaper actually the Ottawa Citizen a couple of weeks ago there was a story about a guy who was in the army for 14 years, he's now a farmer and he was complaining that in civilian life he didn't get free dental insurance for his six children. So in the article he says, give me my dental back. I appreciate the gratitude for my service but gratitude is also about making sure my family gets looked after. Now I find this attitude rather baffling when what he seems to be saying is that if you served in the military for any amount of time then society has an obligation to look after you forever no matter what. And at the time this man joined the Canadian forces there were very clear rules. If you served 20 years then you got an immediate pension and additional benefits such as free dental for yourself and your family.  And everybody knew the rules. You serve for 20 years you get the pension and benefits. If you leave earlier say after 14 years, you don't. I was in the army for a while but I don't get free dental I don't consider it's a problem. So why does he think that he's entitled to it? Making it more difficult is the way these things are reported in the press and they're always reported very positively.  You get all sorts of stuff dumped on you. And that's the kind of thing I wanna talk about. And finally there's kind of interesting in the main Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail on Monday there were big headlines. The front page story was military refused to beef up addiction care. When it quoted General Romier Delaire who was former commander of UN forces in Rwanda and says Delaire decries penny pinching on veteran services. And this shows that the question of veteran benefits is not just an American thing it's very high profile north of the border as well. And the kind of issue raised in the Globe and Mail which was to do with what relates to what serving and retired military personnel can receive if they have mental and physical wounds is a very serious issue. And obviously it's far more serious than the issue of a reservist trying to get free luggage on an airplane. And in a way it's somewhat unfair to lump them together unless you trivialize the more important ones of them. However, in some respects they do have something in common. They all indicate that we're experiencing something of a problem of expectations in which serving in retired members of the military have come to expect a certain level of benefits but society and the state are not prepared to give them what they think they're entitled to. The result is growing dissatisfaction. And this seems to me to be a relatively new phenomenon. Certainly not something I remember from the era when I was in the Army. So I think it's worth analyzing. Because of this what I want to do in my talk is examine this problem of expectations and ask the question what are military personnel entitled to? My answers will be fairly general rather than specific and I'll suggest that what they're entitled to is what other citizens are entitled to. But the idea that the state and society have special obligations towards serving or retired military personnel is incompatible with liberal democratic principles. And I realize this may not be a popular conclusion but I hope that instead of rejecting it outright you will at least consider it seriously. So where do the growing expectations come from? I think there are a number of factors at work here. The most important is probably the increased tempo of military operations over the past 15 years which has meant that more and more personnel have served overseas. Along the way many have been injured, some very badly and their needs are often very great. Those needs have not always been satisfied. To be fair by historical standards the treatment of our veterans is generally pretty good but it isn't always as we have seen in the United States for instance with the scandal about Walter Reed Medical Center. So whilst publicized cases of things going wrong have helped to create a picture of unsatisfactory treatment which has become quite well-intrenched. Meanwhile the high profile which recent wars have given the military has helped also to raise military members social status. The support our troops movement has been phenomenally successful. The last 15 years have seen a sort of valorization of the armed forces which many people now see as embodying what is finest about their countries. Or at least that is what they say in public even if they don't always privately believe it. Certainly politicians in many western states have gone out of their way to praise military personnel as especially good people. For instance former Canadian Defense Minister Peter McKay told troops returning from Afghanistan that they were quote, Canada's finest citizens bar none. And it shouldn't be altogether surprising if people who hear such stuff over and over again start to believe it. Further complicating the issue is that certain high ranking people have promised things or implied things which they really ought not to have promised or implied. In Canada for instance in the middle of the Afghan campaign the then chief of defense staff, General Rick Hillier vowed to do everything he could to keep wounded soldiers in the military if they wanted to stay. The problem with this pledge was that it encouraged expectations which couldn't be satisfied. Although Hillier had only said that he would do everything he could. Hillier had a reputation as being a straight talking guy who looks after the troops and so people interpreted this as meaning that they would definitely be able to keep their jobs even if badly wounded. But of course that proved to be impractical and the Canadian forces weren't able to keep the promise. The result has been at least one court case in which a badly wounded soldier came forward to say that he had been promised he could stay in the army but was then thrown out. Now that was a case of a specific promise but in recent years in some countries a mythology has developed about a more general promise to members of the armed forces that they will receive a certain level of benefits which they find satisfactory. In some cases the language used to describe this alleged promise has taken on crazy religious overtones. In the United Kingdom for instance in the last decade an idea has taken root that the state and its soldiers are bound by a sacred covenant. And in line with this the British armed forces have recently introduced a formal doctrine of civil military relations called the armed forces covenant. The drafters of which were actually the son of a priest, a priest and a general who was educated in the Catholic school who wrote the drafter of Thomas Aquinas by his side. So it was very religiously deliberately religious in overtones. Similar language is used in Canada where a group of veterans has sued the federal government saying that the benefits it provides to veterans are insufficient and that the government has quote a sacred obligation, unquote, to care for veterans because of quote a social covenant which exists between the state and its soldiers. And according to the text of the lawsuit military personnel have quote a unique relationship with the crown by the crown in Canada we mean the state. In return for undertaking onerous and often dangerous obligations armed forces members were promised that they and their dependents would be fairly and adequately compensated. So the idea here is they're saying in a lawsuit that a general promise was made. Problems arise, however, when you try and pin them down about where and when this promise was actually made. And in Britain, supporters of the military covenants have conjured up long forgotten pledges made by Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century. And in Canada they rely on a speech made by Prime Minister Robert Borden in 1917 when Canada not only was fighting a world war but was also in the midst of a general election campaign. The idea then is that I mean it strikes me that the idea that a promise made by a politician in an election a hundred years ago is somehow eternally binding upon the state as it forms the foundations of a sacred covenant between the state and its servants I think is rather far-fetched. But this is the language which is being used. Indeed the whole idea that the state has promised something more than what is currently being provided isn't justified by most of the facts. At least in the countries I have studied, I can't really speak for the United States because I haven't studied your country so much. Certainly jurisprudence in Canada and the United Kingdom make it very clear that the state does not have any sacred obligation of the sort that veterans claim. In one of the key cases on the issue the judge determined that, quote, both English and Canadian courts have always considered that the crown is in no way contractually bound to the members of the armed forces. That a person who joins the forces enters into a unilateral commitment in return for which the queen assumes no obligations. So that's pretty clear. So here we come to the core of the problem of expectations. Many service personnel, it seems, have come to believe that they have been promised benefits and above and beyond what they are receiving but the state takes a very different view and is backed by the courts which is that the state never promised any such thing. All it has ever promised is what is written in legislation. So in Canada the state has promised in legislation that if you serve 20 years you get a pension and dental insurance. But there's nothing in legislation saying that if you serve a shorter time such as 14 years you should get it. So if the man I previously mentioned thinks that he is entitled to free dental he's just plain wrong. That was never promised. He was a volunteer who signed up with his own free will on the terms which existed at the time he signed up and has no right to complain that he is not being given something which was not part of the terms and conditions of his service when he joined or when he left. As for the idea that there is some holy covenant out there which entitles military personnel to something more that is a figment of their imagination. The state never agreed to such a covenant and is under no obligation to abide by what some of its servants imagine it to be just because they happen to imagine it. So my first answer to the question what our service personnel entitled to would be that they are entitled to whatever they have specifically been promised under the terms of their employment and whatever legislation they exist about veterans benefits and so on. They aren't entitled to more than that. After all they freely entered into a relationship based on those terms and conditions. However, there is a trend at least among some people to think that they are entitled to more. I cannot say how widespread this phenomenon is. You will know that better than I do because you're still in the military whereas my family ties to the military were severed several years ago so I'm viewing things at a distance. But I do know that I'm not alone in thinking that this is a problem. So journalist Tom Ricks who wrote a well-known book about U.S. operations in Iraq called Fiasco which perhaps some of you may have read. He got a few people to write about this on his blog and this is why I need my quotes because I have to read what these guys actually said, okay. So one of them a U.S. Marine wrote the following. He said, I think there's a culture of entitlement being bred in new veterans. I suspect that this is a product of the all volunteer force and the Vietnam era. No one wants to be accused of being anti-military so folks bend over backwards to extend various privileges and perks to veterans. This is compounded by veterans organizations which encourage service members to fight for disability benefits which may or may not be legitimate or at least that was my experience. New veterans are leaving the military thinking that society owes them something other than a little appreciation. And then another veteran wrote something similar on Rick's blog, he said, quote, in our attempt to heal, to be generous and to be thankful to those who volunteered to serve, America inadvertently created a cadre of veterans for whom nothing would ever be good enough. Our generation is easily the best supported generation of veterans since those of World War II. However, we have been nervous to say out loud that service alone should not guarantee free admission and the front of every line for every service member. And this service sense of entitlement can extend beyond service personnel to their families. For instance, there was a recent article in the Washington Post earlier this year in which the author who's a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Army said this, quote, my wife and I own a couple of smoothie food shops. Recently, I had a spouse grow irate with my cashier because we didn't offer a discount to military family members. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened. In this particular case, my cashier was on the receiving end of a very long tirade about how obviously unappreciative ownership must be of the sacrifices of the military family. The woman ended by stating it would be in the owner's best interest to offer discounts to families as well. I wish I was there to find out exactly what she meant beyond her vague threat. Her response, I believe, had nothing to do with my veteran-owned business being unappreciative of military families and everything to do with the growing sense in our active and tired military community that as a group, its members should be catered to because of their service. This idea that military personnel deserves special treatment is not universally accepted. In essence, there are two models of the benefits that military personnel should receive. These are the no disadvantage model and the citizen plus model. So the first implies that servicemen and women should not be disadvantaged because of being in the military. So in the case of medical care, for instance, this would mean that wounded veterans should receive the same benefits as civilians who suffer the same injuries. The second model, however, implies that because of the unique nature of their service, military personnel should enjoy greater benefits than civilians. The wounded veteran therefore should not receive the same as the equally badly wounded civilian, but more. Unfortunately, people often muddle these up together and when they're making arguments, they put both in together in a sort of intellectually incoherent way so it's not very easy to work out what it is they're actually demanding. So for instance, in the Canadian court case I mentioned, veterans' lawyers fail to make a distinction between the two types of claims. On the one hand, their case says that quote, they are being treated unequally because the benefits and compensation available under the new veterans' charter are substantially less favorable than those that are available to injured person claiming under tort law or workers' compensation. So that's a claim which fits in the no disadvantage model. They're saying veterans' benefits are not equal to what you get under workers' compensation than you ought to be. On the other hand, the lawyers then go on to appeal to the armed forces quote, unique relationship with the crowd, which is a very different point of principle. And really fits better with the Citizen Plus model. So for instance, a guy called Michael Blay who's in charge of one of the more militant veteran groups in Canada called Canadian Veterans Advocacy has been backing this lawsuit and he has said things which make it very clear that he views the military status in terms of Citizens Plus. So this is what he has to say, I'll quote him. Nor do we agree with this or support the Royal Canadian Legion or many prominent veterans' organizations that have united under the banner of the consultation group on this issue. They would propose solutions that compare the sacrifice of Major Mark Campbell whose legs were explosively amputated, who suffered serious internal injuries, including the loss of a testicle who has brainstem injury and complex PTSD. We have applied to the civilian awarded legal damages due to negligence at the workplace in Ontario. This is unconscionable. There is no comparison. The sacred obligation is not accorded to a litigant in a lawsuit. The sacred obligation is reserved for Canadians who have sworn allegiance to this great nation, who have borne arms in our name and bled in battle, who have suffered in peace with unwavering loyalty and offered great sacrifice while treading in harm's way in Canada's name. Clearly the compensation quotient of the lump sum award must reflect and respect for sacrifice borne. End quote. So it's very clear in this quotation that the speaker views the entitlements of soldiers and civilians as being different regardless of need. He actually says that it's unconscionable to compare the injuries of the very badly injured major with a similarly injured civilian. Failure to distinguish between two models happens elsewhere. In Britain, for instance, the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organization said the following in a 2009 statement, quote, the armed forces do not demand privileged status but expect to be treated as a special group within the public sector to reflect the unique nature of military service. And as one member of the British Parliament commented, it's difficult to know what to make of it. Okay, because they're saying, we're not a special group, but we demand special status. The Confederation finds further expression in the armed forces covenant adopted by the British government in 2010. This declares that, quote, those who serve in the armed forces should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provisions of public and commercial services. So they're talking in no disadvantage language. But then a document goes on to say that veterans should receive, quote, priority treatment from the National Health Service, should have, quote, priority status in applying for government-sponsored affordable housing schemes and should have additional support in accessing local service delivery, such as social housing or free access to leisure facilities, discounts in shops and restaurants. In this way, the Covenant clearly seeks to extend perks to military personnel that other citizens do not have, and therefore it clearly implies a citizen's plus status for all military personnel. All military personnel are automatically deserving of civilian society's respect. That's the argument being made. So how could you justify this citizen-plus model? Well, a common argument I often hear in favor of it is that military service is unlike other professions because it isn't selfish in its intent. Military personnel don't serve in order to make money for themselves, but to protect their nation. Working for the military is a morally superior activity to other tasks. As it serves the community as a whole, the community ought to reward it by, for instance, offering discounts that aren't offered to members of other professions. There are some problems with this line of argument. First, it is paradoxical to use the idea that military service is selfless as an argument to demand greater privileges. Okay, it's just intellectual nonsense. Second, while serving the higher good may be part of many servicemen and women, such as yourselves, it certainly isn't the only motivation. People join up for all sorts of reasons to have their college tuition paid for, out of a sense of adventure, or to learn a trade while getting a reasonable salary. Furthermore, and this one I'm gonna really get a little bit more provocative, I'm not convinced that the military does provide a greater public service than other professions. Anybody working in any productive form of employment is contributing to the general good of society. Okay. Some might even argue that they are actually contributing more than the military is. I haven't yet met anybody who thinks that doctors, teachers, firefighters, and so on don't contribute to the public good. There are good reasons for everybody to be grateful to them. But if you disagree with what the military is doing in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan or something, then you may not think it's performing a public service at all. When I was last living in Britain, I was opposed to the war in Iraq. Did I think that British soldiers were contributing to the good of my society by fighting in Iraq? Not at all! Quite the opposite. They were making neither Britain nor Iraq any safer. I could not think of any good reason why I should have felt any debt of gratitude for them for doing something which wasn't helping me or my society in any way. So if we are to justify citizen plus status, we need to move beyond ideas of public service. Instead, a justification might be found in the idea that military service is a unique profession and thus merits unique entitlements. Specifically, one could argue that because they are subject to military discipline, military personnel lose rights as a result of their service. Because they lose some rights, they might be said to be entitled to receive some perks as compensation. And that kind of makes sense, but I don't find it desperately convincing, particularly when you're talking about professional armies, because in professional armies, the loss of rights is entirely voluntary. And if you voluntarily decide to discard your rights, it's difficult to then come back and say, well, I'm entitled to something right now. Furthermore, although I'm not at all sure what the situation is in the United States, but certainly in Europe courts are more and more often deciding that military service does not, in fact, deprive personnel of their legal rights, okay, even during armed conflict. So courts have used human rights legislation to determine that military personnel have a right to form a trade union anywhere in Europe. And also to determine that some soldiers killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq who are unjustly deprived of their right to life. You might find this a little bizarre, these are legal rulings, but they have been made. So legal trends are making the idea that military personnel must give up of their rights increasingly untenable. Nevertheless, it could still be said that the military profession is unique because it involves potential loss of life. Being different in this way, it could be said that it deserves special remuneration. And this idea was expressed by one of the authors of the British Army's military covenant, General Sebastian Roberts, who remarked that in drafting it, quote, I wanted it to be widely understood that soldiers potentially give everything in return the nation, private or public must be prepared to give everything back. And quoting General Sir John Hackett, some Canadian veterans have used similar language claiming that as soldiers have an unlimited liability in response, the state has an equally unlimited liability towards them. And I understand this argument, but I think it's unreasonable. No state and no society can issue a blank check. You cannot simply say that state and society have an unlimited liability to veterans and that they must give everything back. That is not possible. Resources in any society are limited. Those which go on one group must come from another. When veterans make a claim for additional resources, they are in fact making a claim for the money of fellow citizens, which the state will have to collect for them through taxes or which their fellow citizens will have to pay for in some other way. The needs of veterans therefore need to be balanced against other social needs as well. Liberal welfare states today are for the most part morally neutral, meaning they generally do not differentiate between the deserving and the undeserving. For instance, Canada's taxation-funded state-run health service, like the National Health Service in Britain, treats the patient whose lung cancer is self-inflicted through smoking equally to the lung cancer patient who never smoked at all. Their need is the same. In short, most states differentiate and distribute benefits upon the basis of what people need rather than who they are or what they are deemed to deserve. And Martin in Q&A mentioned the Israeli military officer, Michael Gross. He's written some interesting things on this. He argues that injured soldiers who cannot return to duty should not receive privileged access to civilian health care, but only the same treatment that equally-needy civilians receive. Soldiers, he says, quote, should be satisfied with military medical care when it, A, is sufficient to maintain their health and fitness, B, can return many of the wounded to battle, C, does not abandon the seriously wounded, and D, provides the seriously wounded with short and long-term health care on par with what their compatriots receive. In short, Gross argues for a no-disadvantage model. He notes that past behavior is not considered a reason for assigning priorities in health care. The bike rider whose serious head injuries are due to his foolish failure to wear a helmet is still rushed to the head of a line in the emergency room. For, as Gross says, quote, the distribution principle that governs the distribution of health care is medical need. It's the bike rider's own fault, but nonetheless, you send him to the front, okay? So if poor behavior is not a reason for giving people less access to care, then behavior which society considers good, such as serving in the military, is not a reason for giving more. As Gross says, quote, the right to health care is an unconditional universal human right guaranteed solely by virtue of one's status as a human being and unaffected by merit or past contribution, military service should not add to or detract from an individual's right to health care. And the same principle applies equally to other forms of state assistance. According to Gross, quote, the principle of not harming should trump that of not rewarding. That is, it is better morally that a faultless should not be harmed rather than the meritorious not be rewarded. The Citizen Plus model is incompatible with this principle. In distributing scarce national resources, what should guide us is not people, what who people are or what they do, but what they need. So the second answer to the question, what our service personnel entitled to is what they need. If it is true that wounded veterans are not receiving the compensation they need, then we have a problem, okay? And we should do something about it. But we assess that by determining their needs not by constructing arguments based on the unique nature of the military profession or some mythical sacred covenant or anything similar. And at the same time, we must remember that national resources are limited and that other people have needs which also have to be met. I was at a conference earlier this year at Kansas State University discussing the subject of honor and modern society. And one of the philosophers present said something I found quite appropriate and he said this, quote, liberalism would never claim that for any given citizen to exercise liberty, she must serve in office. So it doesn't, whether you're in office or not, you're still equally free in a liberal order. And he then went on to remark that it's difficult to see how liberalism could consider serving in government office, making someone ethically superior. As he said, quote, giving freedom priority value certainly gives us no reason to value government service over any other kind of job nor does it suggest that some citizens are ethically superior to others. Okay, I agree with this. And if it is true of political office and government service more generally, then it is true of military service more specifically. While no disadvantage is evidently fair, citizen plus is hard to reconcile with a liberal democratic order. I also think it is potentially dangerous. So Martin was telling me Andrew Basavich, as a former US Army colonel. Now a professor was here last year, he's written a number of books criticizing what he calls the new American militarism. And he comments that, quote, in public life today, paying homage to those in uniform has become obligatory and the one unforgivable sin is to be found guilty of failing to support the troops. And the risk is that this elevation of the military makes it very difficult to civilians to criticize anything that the military does. So we can see in countries like the USA, Canada and Britain that criticism of recent wars, many of which have been both morally questionable and militarily unsuccessful has been very muted. One reason is that the elevation of the soldier into a figure worthy of special respect has made it easy for war supporters to silence critics by claiming that in criticizing the war, they are criticizing the soldiers or in some way fading to support them. After all, the troops need high morale if they are to succeed and they can't have high morale if people keep saying that the war they are fighting is morally unjust. Therefore, you can't say it's morally unjust because if you say it's morally unjust, that's incompatible with supporting the troops. This was an argument used by Stephen Harper who until yesterday was Prime Minister of Canada who when the opposition New Democratic Party criticized the Canadian military in operation in Afghanistan and in reply Harper said that the New Democrats were undermining the troops. So he used to support our troops things just to silence any discussion about whether this was a good operation or not. And Basavich points out that before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there was considerable public disquiet about the planned war but quote, no politician of national stature offered himself or herself as the movement's champion. No would-be statesman nursing even the slightest prospects of high national office was willing to risk being tagged with not supporting those whom President Bush was ordering into harm's way. Opposition to war had become something of a third rail. Only the very brave or the very foolhardy dared to venture anywhere near it. Making it impossible to criticize soldiers also makes it more difficult to render the military as a whole accountable when errors are made. One can see this in Britain for instance, the British Army's operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan were decidedly unsuccessful to put it fairly mildly. This was in part due to some very poor decisions made at the higher levels of the military and privately some people will admit this. Yet almost nobody has ever criticized Britain's military commanders. Why? Because those commanders managed a wonderful political campaign in which they deflected blame onto the government by saying that the government wasn't supporting the troops by not giving them enough resources. So the whole support the troops scheme thus became a way of avoiding accountability and of actually getting even more money for a fading institution, which is the opposite of accountability. Okay. Accountability is the bedrock of democracy. You know, we think of democracy as being about voting. Well no, voting is not an end in itself. Voting is about accountability. Democracy is all about accountability. So when an institution's failures are not believed to be a reason for holding that institution to account but rather a reason to blame elected officials for allegedly fading to give enough resources, we do not have accountability. Okay. The raising of military personnel into citizens plus places them beyond the realm of democratic control. This is not a desirable development. So my third answer to the question, what our military service personnel entitled to is therefore that no disadvantaged model of entitlements is preferable to the citizen plus model. Military personnel should be considered equal members of our society not as deserving special rights. This conclusion fits well with the ethical theory currently used by the German army known as Inne Röferung, which means roughly inner leadership. Inne Röferung was developed as a response to the militarism of Nazi Germany and it specifically rejects the concept of citizens plus. Instead it stipulates that military personnel are citizens in uniform. As such, military personnel should endorse the same values and virtues as other citizens. This contrasts quite strongly with the approach in some other countries, which promotes the idea that the unique nature of military service requires military personnel to endorse different values from civilian society and which also requires them to be especially virtuous. This second approach goes together with a form of military ethics education which emphasizes character development and virtues. This is based on the view that military life puts people in particularly challenging moral situations and so requires that they be of particularly high moral character. Military institutions, the argument goes, therefore have to have higher moral standards than civilian ones. And no doubt this is something you have all heard and some of you believe. But it is an approach which is hotly debated and it has some drawbacks. One of which is that when you keep saying that the military has particularly high moral standards, you may end up believing that military personnel are particularly moral people. After all, we have particularly high moral standards and you're in here and you haven't been thrown out so you must be a paragon of these particularly high moral standards so therefore you are particularly moral people. And better than civilians. And because of that, you deserve special status. Actually this is also a relatively new phenomenon. At least in the English speaking world, once the prevailing view was what the Duke of Wellington said, which is that soldiers were the mere scum of the earth. Nowadays, however, there's a growing belief that members of the armed forces are supercitizens or as Andrew Basevich writes, quote, a repository of traditional values and old fashioned virtue. And in the United States, says Basevich, there is quote, a tendency to elevate the soldier to the status of national icon, the apotheosis of all that is great and good about contemporary America. Soldiers, Basevich writes, quote, have tended to concur with this evaluation of their own moral superiority. And as retired US, as I'm in the Navy, so I've got a better quote than Navy officer, so retired US Admiral Stanley Arthur has said this, he says, quote, more and more enlisted as well as officers are beginning to feel that they are special, better than the society they serve. And for the reasons I have outlined earlier, I don't think this is a good thing. And if I get all preachy, we'd like to caution you against it. So to conclude, I have three answers to the question, what are service personnel and veterans entitled to? First, they're entitled to whatever was in the terms and conditions they agreed to when serving in the military. Second, if they have some special need which results from their military service, their compensation should be based upon their needs, not upon the fact that the need is a product of their service. Furthermore, the provision of benefits to meet those needs has to be considered in the context of the limits of national resources and the needs of other members of society. Third, the no disadvantage model of entitlements is preferable to the Citizen Plus model. Military personnel should be considered equal members of our society, not deserving of special rights. And on that note, I conclude and I hope I've stimulated some thought and will be happy to take your questions. Thank you.


Okay, we're looking at the book of the dead of a man named Sobek Mosa. He has a simple title of the Gold Worker of a Moon, which meant that he either was someone who worked doing specific tasks in the Treasury for the God of Moon, or he was perhaps a jeweler. He's alternating between black ink and red ink, the red ink that you see, which the technical term that we use is rubric, that indicates the beginning of a new text, the beginning of a new book of the dead spell. Describe dipped his pen in ink, in black ink, he could make about five or six, maybe seven signs before he had to dip the pen again. Like right in here you can see the writing, it starts to get lighter, and right when you get to that sign he dips the pen again, and when he makes this hieroglyph right here, this hieroglyph, there's a lot of ink on it. The text is being written from right to left, which is unusual for books of the dead at this point in time, although not unheard of. Given the fact that it is the length that it is, and it has the number of spells on both the rector and the verso, it is one of the longest books of the dead from the New Kingdom.


Hey guys, it's Agent Zero here. I make NBA 2K videos. Have you subscribed yet? Well, thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen. Also, second channel link in the description, almost at 200K, y'all have been showing a lot of love. I appreciate that. Okay, here's why I'm depressed. I play park, you know what I'm saying? Like, I used to play every mode.  You know, 2K16 agent, I played a whole lot of pro-am. I played a whole lot of park. I played a whole lot of my team. I played a whole lot of my GMI league. And you know what, I even dabbled in some play now. You know, 2020 agent, I just been playing the park. Occasionally play pro-am, that's about it.  They don't even want to look as if they're trying. They just want people to know that they fully neglect those modes every single year. So there's really no point. On the my team side, my wallet just started to feel pain, like true misery. Like it has nerves connected to it. And a whole central nervous system, it was going through a breakdown. So I had to stop playing that too. So here I am now, I'm playing park, you know what I'm saying, for most part. And even that's debatable. Yeah, y'all be in the comments talking about some agent, why are you hiding your rep?  How could I be hiding the fact that I'm not playing? I'm telling you all that. Agent, why aren't you playing? Well hold on right there, buddy, I'll let you know.  What am I supposed to do, right? Every other game I play, regardless of whether or not it's Apex Legend, Valorant, it can be Call of Duty Warzone, there's seasonal content. Some of it is free, some of it is paid for. They make their money, how they make their money. I'm not mad at that. Although sometimes I am depending on whether or not it's seen as very malicious. What I'm trying to say, bro, is that they're not even trying this year. I mean, they have a rotation of park events, cool. But is that really content though? First of all, most of the park events are recycled. That's fine. But they did add some new park events. But that's it though. It's the same layout of a neighborhood I have to see for the second year in a row. And we know what happened the last time they did that. 2K16 to 2K17, everybody was pissed. Now everyone pretends as if 17 was wavy. No, no, no. I'm gonna remind y'all cause I was there in the moment.  Everybody.  And it was a recycled park. The only people that should say 2K17 was great are pro-amp players. That's it. If you're playing park and you say that, you weren't thinking straight. Or that must've been your first 2K. Cause I know what it was like in the community at the time and it was a consensus that that game was ass.  Starting to lose it, man. This is why I'm depressed, guys.  So all right, we do get some content in park events, but a few months into the damn year, we already been through the old imaginable park events. And I get it. For my team, it's easy. Okay, cool. This tweets like this just makes me a little bit sadder inside. This tough fireball with my Galaxy, Opal and NBA 2K's new next packs. Look, look, my team guys getting new. They just got, Lamello's not even in the NBA, man. And they got that content. I don't think in the history of 2K have we ever seen a player not in the NBA in a my team pack. Am I bugging? So they get new packs and bundles and collections and you could play this new mode and this new to unlock this new player. And so there's always things moving. It feels like there's something to attain. What is there to attain for the park players? And you can't sit there and tell me it's winning park events because there's glitches for legend, for mascots. There's glitches to win the clothes or the prizes you get at the park events. So it's like there's a glitch to win everything of value. That on top of the fact that even when you aren't glitching to get it, a lot of the times the people that win are just glitching or boosting. So how am I enticed to play a mode where I know that the person that wins most likely cheated? I'm supposed to spend four or five hours out of my day to be the small select itty-bitty group of people that want it legitimately, huh? I'm genuinely curious what the art team is doing, bro. What are they, what do they do? What is the art team? It's not one guy. What is the team of people that design levels? What do they do? Give me right there. Right there. Awesome. Right there. Ah, thank you man. Appreciate it. Thank you for looking out. So most other dev teams understand that. Like yo, if you want people to come back and keep playing your game, you gotta give them something fresh. And you know, I guess we get clothes and like they put clothes in the store as they update that kind of frequently. I feel like I'm asking for the bare minimum and I'm not even getting that. This is how we usually relationships break apart guys. I'm married to the game. I'm so corny. Oh my God. Hey, so that's how I'm feeling. Y'all be telling me I'm not hiding nothing. I don't care if people don't think I played a game. I'm telling y'all that. In fact, I'm dropping a gameplay video either tomorrow or the next day and it's gonna be 2K19. You know why?  I genuinely enjoy that game. Crazy cause I said that since time man. I try to tell everybody man, if they just changed the contest system like this, then it would have been flawless. Just like this guys. So I'm already kind of sad about the fact that there's no new content on the Parkside. And don't try and convince me what they're giving us that counts as new content, all right? It's not. New content would be if they said, hey guys, it's been six months, eight and eight months since, nine months since 10 months since the game launched. Here's two new arenas you guys can play in 3V3 Pro and in Venice Beach in Rucker Park. That's content. We understand that you guys aren't really happy with all the dribble packages in the game. Here are some new dribble packages you guys can use. Hey guys, we understand that slasher's y'all love contact dunks. Here's a new package of contact dunks to use. That's what content looks like. Just to let you know, in case maybe we forgot since we haven't seen it in so long. So I'm already kind of disappointed about that. Then I get a little bit more measurable when I know that we're going through the next 2K cycle. And we don't really know and we thought for a moment we might know some and then we've been bamboozled again. Absolutely and positively bamboozled ladies and gentlemen. So NBA 2K put out this tweet. We're coming on TikTok tomorrow and dropping hashtag NBA 2K20 info. Excuse me, I'm excited. I'm ecstatic. I'm belated. Oh no, elated. Belated would be the thing you do when you're late to something. And so I'm feeling myself. All right, okay, hold on. Now let me just calm down and say.  And this is the post they put out by the way. This is the post. 2K told me they were gonna announce something in two days.  Oh no, man, oh no. 2K just teased an announcement where they teased an announcement. And that announcement that they're busy teasing is wildly irrelevant because really we wanna see gameplay. We already know Kobe's gonna be on the special edition, legend edition, whatever they call it. And they're probably gonna put Zion or something like that on the main. They might even put Lonzo on there, man. You never know. But regardless, the game inside is still the same so I don't care. There's people that genuinely sit there and make purchase decisions based off of who's on the cover and those are my favorite kind of people. I like to like, I just wanna throw you in a lab and investigate like what is going on in your head? You know it's gonna be the same game regardless, man. And most of y'all be buying it digital. If you're buying it digital and you still care what's on the cover then I wanna take you, put you in a secret lab underground somewhere in Las Vegas. And I wanna ask questions. So that everybody's clued on our NBA 2K's TikTok because we just wanna know more. And these are what the next few posts look like. NBA 2K 21 in-game soundtrack, Sneak Peek, which I'm gonna mute because I don't wanna catch copyright. It was crazy. I actually had a conversation with the guy that works on the soundtracks for 2K. And I felt bad for him because like, he has to go through a lot to get the license just to be able to do this. And it costs 2K a lot of money but they do it because it's a selling point for some reason people care. But do people really care though? That's the real question. I feel like the soundtracks are only significant as so that five years from now, when you hear one of these songs from Polo G, Roddy Rich or Stormzy, you can be like, oh, that was 2K 21. That's all they're good for. That's it. Nostalgia, five years from now. They're doing new scans for NBA 2K 21. Yep, yep, new scans. So, and you know what's crazy is I wish instead of making this kind of content, which I guess is fine, they should show y'all what that process is like because I've been in the scanning booth before and it's really dope. You're surrounded by over a hundred cameras and they make you do a whole bunch of facial expressions and they take photos of those facial expressions and they can immediately just throw it on your player and it animates your facial. It's crazy. That would be incredible content. Maybe they will do that at some point. And then they just today, I think, posted two hours ago posted this Mike Wayne. Mike Wayne, you're alive! Yes, gentlemen, we didn't know where he went. Mike is like the absentee father of the 2K community. He'd just be disappearing but when he comes back, man, it's all love, Mike. Tell us more. This is how long it'll take NBA 2K21 to load on Next Gen. 2K21. Mike. Mike, I need you to blink twice if you're being held hostage, man.   Hey, Mike, can you bother telling us if the game is gonna release on this Gen before Next Gen? What the, could we get to see, we want, that's what we really wanna know. We don't care about the load. Actually, we did in 2K17, but since then it's not really a big deal. Actually, in 2K18, when you pulled up the MyPlayer Lab, it still took a while and that was kind of frustrating. So we didn't really care that much and except sometimes you really just, you lag forever and it takes forever to load into the park. So maybe turns out we do care, Mike, but I want you to explain to us in depth. Like, are we talking two seconds? Are we talking two seconds? I genuinely get horny over that. No cap. I don't know why 2K thinks that their best promotional strategy this year is to do it all on TikTok. I guess they know that whatever they do on TikTok is gonna be reposted everywhere. So, well in that token it doesn't really matter where they do it because if they do it somewhere else they'll be reposted to TikTok. But probably the most interesting thing that they posted and something I wish they did more frequently because we only ever know of this through leaks is new dunk animations and they recorded the whole process. A little mocap suits on. You can see their little studio with their millions of cameras. That's dope content to me. You should get this guy right here doing all the dunks to vlog the whole thing and post it on your YouTube channel. Like, do y'all need me working for the team or something? Like, what's going on? Why y'all missing out on these content opportunities, man? The content guy was like, all right, let's take like seven dunks, put this surprised emoji right here and then let's post it onto TikTok and nowhere else.  Brilliant strategy.  It's June, it's almost July, guys and my team is getting packs, packs, packs. It's easy for my team. It takes one guy like four hours. All he has to do is create the player which is not gonna be hard. They probably got a face scan for Lamello. Apply some tendencies, attributes, badges. Then you're gonna turn around. All you gotta do is design a graphic for the guy so you can upload the card. A card has a design and everything. That takes like one hour maximum. And then by the end of the night you just apply him to some collections and put him in a box and call it a day, man. Boom, you just made yourself probably millions of dollars, millions. That simple, one guy, six hours. A lot of incentive. In the same token, 2K could just continue to do that in the park. But really for what though? Like clothe, I guess, aesthetic stuff, I guess. But the content I'm talking about and how I wanna end the video is I need like new level designs. I need new animation packages. I need like something fresh, like a new, like a new mode like surprise me, 4v4 program. Like I need something. And not in the same cookie cutter layout. Just slap a different skin on the playground and call it a day.  No!  If someone from the art team at 2K is watching this, I want to interview you. I'm not trolling, I'm being so for real. I have so many questions on why the game is the way it is. And I feel like you have all the answers but nobody knows who you are. So that's a problem, cause we would like to know. So just reach out to me on Twitter or something or on my email, which is on my Twitter. Thank you. Hey, if you guys enjoyed the video, man, make sure to drop a like, subscribe to the channel. Second link channel in the description. All right, almost at 200K. Appreciate you all for showing love. Most of y'all have been subscribed already. So yeah, just doing reactions, vlogs, IRL basketball stuff, all linked. I'm gonna catch you guys in the next video. I'm out.


the bands and the entertainment on course. But they're under marathon are phenomenal. And when you're struggling, when things get tough, tune out to the amazing bands on course.


Welcome to the introduction video for the paper titled Real-Time Imaging of Antibiofilm Effects Using CPS OCT, which was written by a team at the University of Minnesota and published in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. In addition to the paper, we have key supplemental files discussing our in vitro biofilm model and also video files of the biofilm imaging discussed in the manuscript. One of the research questions that this paper addresses is how do compounds affect in vitro oral biofilms under low and high flow conditions. Specifically we looked at three different compounds and their effect on oral biofilms under low and high flow conditions. The first part of our paper discusses the development and characterization of a flow cell that can accommodate biofilm grown on saliva coated hydroxyapatite discs. The unique design of this flow cell allows it to be paired with CPS OCT imaging. The paper discusses how we use two different speeds to create two different types of shear stress across the biofilm in the flow cell. And the biofilm in the flow cell can be imaged with CPS OCT which stands for cross polarization optical coherence tomography and the details of the system are discussed in the manuscript. One interesting video that you will find as a supplemental file is the effect of high flow five molar urea. You can see that five molar urea causes detachment of the biofilm to the saliva coated hydroxyapatite disc. And CPS OCT imaging allows you to monitor the rate and removal of the biofilm. It also allows you to view the effect of these compounds in both low and high flow conditions. You will see that although most of the biofilm is removed there remains certain parts of the biofilm that are still adherent to the hydroxyapatite. The manuscript discusses how exposure to low flow urea for a period of 15 minutes causes a swelling or increase in the vertical dimension of these biofilms. After 15 minutes the flow is changed to a high flow condition for two minutes where biofilms are almost completely removed by urea compared to biofilms exposed to PBS. So how does 1% chlorhexidine dynamically affect biofilms under low and high shear stress conditions? The answers and more can be found in our manuscript, Real Time Imaging of Antibiofilm Effects Using CPS OCT and please find us on the web as the BAM Lab at the University of Minnesota.


We were in a house. He already knows the house I'm thinking of. It was in Niagara, Missouri. Yeah, it was where we were. And the lady, this was a big case. It was over $300 a month final expense. $300 a month final expense. The lady said, you know what? I really need to think about this. You know, I'll probably do it. I really need to think about it. Can you guys come back? This was like a Friday. Can you guys come back on Monday? And I was getting ready to say what time would be good for you? We can sit down and do it. Cody said, we don't do callbacks. He said, I'm sorry, ma'am. You've got all the information here that you need. Nothing is going to change. We don't do callbacks. So if you want to do it, we'd love to do it today. But if not, that's okay. And I am just kicking him under the table. I mean, I'm at a bit of tarry under there. And the lady says, well, okay, let's do it. And I mean, that was pretty amazing. I still remember that. That's off. That's straight off of that. We just did, we just did a video DJ and I did a few days ago, three top three books for insurance, new insurance agents. The very first book I mentioned was the art of closing the cell by Brian Tracy. I learned that at 19 years old from that book. I can't take credit because Brian Tracy would find out. Yeah. Well, here's the thing. Turning a two-appointment cell into a one-appointment cell, I think it involves a couple of things. Number one, the way to take it to a one-appointment cell is make sure you've done everything right in the one-appointment cell. If they don't have all the information they need, that's your fault. If they don't feel comfortable with the price, if you haven't found out their budget, if you're on a one-legged appointment, that's your fault too. Because you should have known, you should have said on the, you know, either if you're setting up the appointment on the phone, hey, this is very important. I'm going to need you and Mrs. Brown to be there. You need to make sure that that's, you know, now if you're door knocking and it's one person, I get it. But for the most part, you can avoid two-appointment closes by doing a better job in the first place.


Now, once you know how the electronic configurations are and then you have to ask whether it is going to have any orbital angular momentum or not. Those questions obviously, when you read you will have you can verify it by this table. You do not have to verify right now you can sit down I hope the table is not wrong none of the data is wrong. So, you should be able to justify the data by itself this is like a self-check ok whether you have understood orbital angular momentum and T 2 G E G electronic configuration or not ok. Same is true in here for tetrahedral complex once again it is the same thing E and T 2 right E and T 2. So, E configuration usually will not give you any unsymmetrical feeling in E is not going to give you orbital angular momentum, but T 2 can right. So, based on that because E is d x 2 y 2 and d z 2 right. So, for example, d 1 d 1 for octahedral is T 2 G 1 right that means, orbital angular momentum is possible d 1 for tetrahedral is E 1 right it is splitting between E and T 2 is that clear any of you did not understand that I will be happy to discuss again. No this is the spin only value 1 unpaired electron 1.73 yes usually say usually what also happens is simply the splitting in the tetrahedral see you cannot directly compare octahedral versus tetrahedral you have to also understand the trend in the sense the splitting between E and T 2 is less in tetrahedral this is octahedral yes this is the observed value and this is the calculated value that is the maximum you get ok. Yes expected is you should get little bit higher than that, but it does not because some quenching is there it is more see we are not going to trick you that observe is less than the calculated that can happen sometime we will see more there could be some other contribution quenching by spin exchange which I will be discussing ok. What I am mainly trying to say is spin only values should be good enough, but when you see the value is more than the spin only value then orbital angular moment perhaps is there how to calculate it simply by figuring out whether you are having orbital angular moment or not. If you experimentally see the value is little less or exactly similar or very close that means, that some other way of quenching would be there which will be one at least one instant we will be discussing today ok. It is you know this is like too simplified in terms of teaching ok. In reality you can have lot of other practical components which maybe we are not discussing, but once again for this class we are saying that only thing you want to worry about is the spin only value. After that if you find that the value is little bit more sometime 0.1 more 0.2 more those are originating because of orbital angular momentum ok. Because you know orbital angular momentum will always add up it is it is it depends on the directionality right. So, if you are imagining let us say more of a spin up and then it is it is another vector is there to direction whatever this vector is having and I mean vector addition is usually you are going to take the modular value the absolute value. That is a good question again. We usually usually never actually worried for the orbital orbital angular momentum versus spin usually we deal separately and then take the pure value of it do the vector addition ok. Now, if you want to do the see it is it is orbital angular momentum actually does not depends on the spin right. It is the motion around the orbital right. So, spin only value is dependent on the spin. So, therefore, up and down is coming orbital angular momentum there is no spin component. Now, that is that is the motion simple the motion is we are discussing right simple motion it is not the up and down motion we are up and down motion is the spin I think that perhaps is the reason. So, let us say some spin are up and some spin are down ok. So, orbital contribution for all those will be taken as just the orbital contribution right up spin and down spin what is the orbital contribution total we are we are seeing, but we are not mixing up that with the spin value spin only value is separate and orbital value is separate ok. Let us calculate where between the orbital and the spin for that spin only value n into n plus 2 mu l plus s ok the main equation the first equation that is assume that it is 90 degree. I think that is that is that is independent of the angle why why we need an angle for that? Well the spin I do not I do not think spin and the orbit are of course, spin orbit coupling can be there those both the coupling can be there, but if you are individually taking how one is affecting the other if direction does not matter actually sorry yeah that is mainly so, that that that is when we have yeah we usually say that when it is less than half field that is l minus s we take when more than half field then we take l plus s value I think it is independent of the direction right ok. I will try to find out if it is dependent if the equation is dependent on the direction ok. Let me proceed further ok we have d z 2 and d x 2 y 2 which is not inter convertible and we are started saying that for d 2 these are the value and then we are saying that these are the orbital contribution whether possible or not yes or no answer. Now, same way it is true for tetrahedral complexes ok you can find out whether it is there or not if there is any discrepancy then then just let me know I think this should be this this is from the book directly. Other reasons for orbital contribution so, usually we are pretty much focused on the ground state electronic configuration. Sometime what happens is let us say T 2 G 6 E G 1, T 2 G 6 E G 1 means there should not be any orbital contribution, but still if you can excite T 2 G 6 E G 1 to T 2 G 5 E G 2 one of the electron from T 2 G level to E G level if you can promote then you can promote or then you can induce orbital angular momentum ok. That is where we are talking that excited state can sometime also contribute ok. These excited state contribution will not be as high as the ground state contribution ok. So, for example, over here T 2 G 6 E G 2 no orbital no orbital angular momentum should be there, but in excited state it should be T 2 G 5 E G 3 now orbital angular momentum will be there. Of course, the absolute value will be less compared to if some other compound is giving from its ground state ok. So, the orbital angular momentum not necessarily coming just from the ground state it can come from also excited state. So, therefore, it this leaves a option or this gives a option to set a question saying that look the spin only value should be this much or you calculate the spin only value which is let us say 1.73 or you know 2. or 4.89 whatever it is, but the observed 5.6 you do the electron distribution and see there is no way you can have orbital contribution orbital angular momentum, but still the value is high. Then of course, you have to think perhaps ground state is not contributing there is a chance may be in the excited state ok. So, under the normal condition if you cannot explain what is going on then you are open to include the excited state. Same is over here E 4 T 2 3 should not have any orbital contribution orbital angular momentum. Now, in excited state E 3 T 2 4 you can have it ok. In all these cases you see that mu observed is greater than mu spin only for both octahedral nickel 2 plus and tetrahedral cobalt 2 plus because these are the electronic configuration for octahedral nickel 2 plus that is there tetrahedral cobalt 2 plus that is there. So, at least these two terms should be very familiar octahedral nickel 2 plus tetrahedral cobalt 2 plus these are the one can give you excited state. Other than that if any question is given in the exam where you cannot once again cannot explain by normal understanding of orbital angular momentum like unsymmetrical filling in T 2 G it is symmetrically filled still the value is high you can try to explain that by contribution from excited state is it clear ok. You read it it should be. Now, this is how it is. So, T 2 G 6 is E 2. Now, one of the electron if you can convert if you put let us say light if you put energy or the distance between these two is not very high in excited state you can excited state you can achieve therefore, from T 2 G 6 E G 2 you can have T 2 G 5 E G 3. Now, in this configuration you can have the orbital angular momentum it is clear both ground state and excited state you need to consider. Now, this is another configuration this is for T 2 G 5 E G 3 I guess this is the one of course, in here you can have three different orientation that is what we are trying to say. So, not from ground state if you go to excited state excited state can have three different configuration right which is the origin for orbital angular momentum ok. No need to have this point just this is good enough. Ground state there is no orbital angular momentum excited state it should be there how it is coming I think you have already learned because the relative positioning of the electron can vary ok. Now, so what we are trying to tell you here is this is also a D 8 this is also a D 8 configuration nickel 2 plus is D 8 nickel 2 plus D 8 octahedral case this is the scenario you have nickel 2 plus D 8 tetrahedral case what is the electronic configuration nickel 2 plus octahedral and tetrahedral nickel 2 plus D 8 octahedral will be this is the electronic configuration ok octahedral with not so strong field ligand strong field ligand should have given you the square planar geometry this is nickel tetrachlora or nickel hexacoa or whatever weak field ligand should give you the octahedral species ok. Whenever you see D 8 be little bit causes D 8 can have octahedral and tetrahedral sorry octahedral and square planar of course, if it is given clearly that is no worry. D 8 with D 8 electronic configuration with strong field ligand like cyanide or carbon monoxide can give you square planar geometry sometime for these cases you do not have to worry, but in other cases you have to worry little now nickel 2 plus octahedral electronic configuration is given nickel 2 plus tetrahedral electronic configuration is D 4 T 2 4 E 4 T 2 4 right. So, E 4 T 2 4 right now the question simply is which one will have higher orbital or higher magnetic moment value both of them are having 2 unpaired electron here you have 2 unpaired electron here you have 2 unpaired electrons right octahedral tetrahedral both of them are having 2 unpaired electron experimentally which one you think will give you higher magnetic moment value. Tetrahedral why is that simply because this contribution for octahedral this orbital angular momentum contribution coming from the excited state in the ground state itself there is no orbital angular momentum in the excited state there is, but in tetrahedral case you can have orbital angular momentum due to the unsymmetrical filling of the T 2 G orbital right that is the reason and actually it can go up to for 2 unpaired electron it can go up to 4 Bohr magneton ok, B m is the unit for magnetic moment ok it is ok it is given. Now, so far we have discussed about the D block elements no that also depends on the ligand strong field if the ligand in strong field usually then only you will see ok. So, if it is a weak field ligand then you do not see too much of that ok alright. Now, weak field means fluoride chloride water these are the weak field ligand you have that you know electro electro electro electro electro electro chemical series right it is not electro electro electro chemical series. Now, so far we tried to discuss the magnetism of D block elements we have simply learned spin only is good enough some few special cases we have say that orbital angular momentum is essential and thereby values can be increased. If once again I think that is a valid point that if you see little bit decrease do not worry about it because there may be other reason we are not worried about less value or lesser value of an experimentally observed magnetic moment we are mainly worried about the higher value lesser value can come from some a lot of other factor. Now, we are now trying to discuss the magnetism or magnetic behavior of lanthanides or actinides you will not get into actinides just simply lanthanides. So, simply speaking lanthanides are of little bit different class of compounds ok.  What essentially that tells you is ligand will have very little effect ligand cannot influence the magnetic moment value because the F electrons are buried inside in it ligand cannot affect the F electron too much or almost nothing. So, D orbitals or D block elements we were seeing that orbital angular momentum value are almost gone right that mu L component is very little only when unsymmetrical feeling is there then we are seeing, but over here you do not have to worry about anything you have to do both L and S component. Orbital and the spin component because orbital component cannot be restricted by the ligand. So, as if you are dealing with a free metal species, although metal complexes are there lanthanide complexes are there lanthanide ion is in the middle ligands are surrounded, but ligands cannot affect the magnetic moment value. But you have seen that for octahedral complex or tetrahedral complex or D block elements ligand can influence there is a splitting in the D orbital. F orbital we do not see such splitting or you can you can take it almost that there is no splitting in the F orbital because ligand and F orbital cannot interact too much that is fine. Therefore, you have to bring back your previous equation which has magnetic moment values by considering both orbital and the angular component ok. Now, the facts that is the fact the F electrons in lanthanides are buried in the n minus 2 cell. So, you are in for calculations what is the calculations? Let me show you this is the calculation this is something I guess you have to know if not remember. I think a lot of you know this already start learning. Now, the so, number of unpaired electrons number of unpaired electrons that is the can that component can give you the S summation of number of spin of the unpaired electron that is S you know L this L you know from this ML value right let me. So, term symbol you have heard of.  Now, S equals number of summation of spin right or whatever way they that is written summation of spin let us say number of unpaired electron. Let us say you have 3 unpaired electron 3 unpaired electron that means, spin will be S will be half plus half plus half right. Now, if you have 3 unpaired electrons. So, this is your F orbitals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.  So, L equals 6 3 2 1 ok. Now, therefore, for that case 3 unpaired electron case you have 6 this L value at 6 6 I will come back to that you know S P term symbol S P D F G H I and so on. So, S L if L value is 0 then that is S if you have not studied before you just go for this Russell Sander's term. S P is 1 D is 2 F is 3 4 5 and so on 1 2 3 4 5. Now, this capital S you have learnt 3 by 2 3 by 2 right 3 by 2 it is going to be 4. So, 4 6 is going to be I I will come back and explain in a moment and J. J is L minus S for the less than half field configuration. So, J in this case will be 6 minus 3 by 2 that is going to be how much 9 by 2. So, this is going to be your term symbol ok. Although you do not need to really know this one like this J term for the class, but I think some of you at least 30 percent of you know or 40 percent of you know I do not know ok. So, what we are trying to tell you is this is the Russell Sander's term symbol you know kind of derivation. What it tells you? The total spin let us say you have F 3 electron 3 F electrons F 3 configuration ok C P R E M. So, what is that 3 3 plus will be C P R E M E M is what is the Einstein E M no E M E M is Einstein E M maybe. Anyways, prosidium is 2 plus is going to be F 2 I think E M is going to be 3 plus 3 sorry 3 unpaired electron. Anyway 3 unpaired electron if you have that 3 unpaired electron will give you spin value S capital S is going to be 3 by 2. You have to calculate the L value. L value L equals summation of M L 3 to 1. So, that is going to be 6 S you know L you know J J equals L plus S or L minus S. L plus S when it is more than half field more than F 7 ok and L minus S when it is less than half field. In this case 3 unpaired electron less than 7 F 7. So, L minus S L minus X that is becoming 9 by 2 ok. Now you left up with just this one 2 S plus 1 L J 2 S plus 1 S equals 3 by 2 you plug that in. So, that is becoming 4 ok. L L is your 6 that means, that 6 means if L equals 0 that is S, if L equals 1 that is P, if L equals 2 capital L equals 2 then D F G H I and so on. So, from there you get I and then J in this case we have calculated L minus S. Some of you who have who knows this that is fine no problem for you those who those of you who did not hear it before just google it you will be able to get it clear. I will show you one over here with preceding 3 plus sorry L plus S yes because less than half field. Less than half. F 7 yeah ok. Now let us look at here ok whoever knows can you please calculate by yourself preceding 3 plus I am saying that electronic configuration is 4 F 2 F 2 ok.  Now F 2 that means, 2 unpaired electrons right 2 unpaired electrons means spin equals half plus half total S equals 1 are you following me fine if you get it right the answer is given here definitely. Now L L equals so, 2 unpaired electron it should be plus 3 and plus 2 L should be the maximum also right it is not like you will put at 0 and minus 1 or anything. So, that is L equals summation of M L M L is what plus 3 plus 2 plus 1 0 minus 1 minus 2 minus 3 7 of them 7 7 are of F for D it was plus 2 plus 1 0 minus 1 minus 2 if it is degenerate ok and so on for P it will be plus 1 0 minus 1 if it is degenerate anyway. So, this is the L value summation of M L 2 unpaired electron 3 and 2 5. Now J will be in this case since it is un half field less than half field less than 7 electrons F 14 F can have 14 electron 2 is less than half less than 7. So, L minus S L minus S 5 minus 1 4 ok. Now if you have that here 3 plus 3 plus 3 plus is 3 H 4 I think you have calculated right 3 H 4 how now you plug it in this equation 2 S plus 1 L J 2 S plus 1 means 2 plus 1 3 L L is going to be 5 that is going to be H. So, 3 H is it getting clear let me just some of you may not be seeing it ok. It is going to be 2 S plus 1 L J.  So, these 5 is going to be 3 and 0 S p d F S p S p d F G H good and 3 H 4 4 is 2 J plus 1 sorry L minus S. Is it correct? Let me let me start I think this math part is way too simple for you guys it is say these 2 equations are there you calculate G J first G J with S and L value and J value and then plug this into this equation that is all. For your verification that is the table you should be able to calculate 2 3 of them by yourself to get confidence nothing else. The values are given equations are given and pair electrons are given and pair electrons are given and pair electrons are given and pair electrons are given and pair electrons are given. So, calculate 2 3 of them by yourself to get confidence nothing else. The values are given equations are given and pair electrons are given L S J value you should be calculating by yourself then mu value calculated value do not worry about the observed value too much just calculate the value you should be able to get exactly same value unless anything is given by mistake any wrong data are given I do not think any wrong data is given ok. So, once again we are talking about the lanthanides F orbitals are not perturbed by ligand therefore, both L and S component orbital and spin component of the magnetic moment you have to consider. Simply you have to know these 2 equations what are those 2 equations these are the 2 equations what is S what is L what is J that you know. Once you have that you have G J calculated you put that G J value and the J value you have already calculated from there you put all these mu value you should be able to get. Those mu values are calculated and shown in here for given electronic configurations for different electronic configuration it is given. So, you sorry that is that is mistake just delete that mu b ok. It is the calculation is shown for prosidium P R 3 plus you can see from for just clarity one of the example is shown here prosidium 3 plus which is F 2 electronic configuration you can calculate this one first yourself and then go on to calculate any of these ok. This is you do not really have to worry about this bottom term you can just calculate the just 1 S 2 F 3 H and so on for the class purpose, but as you know this is very simple 2 S plus 1 L J this J you do not really have to worry J equals L plus S or L minus S, but still I would say you should do it for the class purpose you may not need to worry. Less than half field electronic configuration L minus S what is the half field half field 7 L plus S will be for the more than half field and from there you can get this term symbol Russell Sanders term symbol it is called ok. Now, let me move on. So, this is the experimentally calculated value sorry theoretically calculated value this is the experimentally observed value it is quite close that is good enough ok. Here you do not have to worry about any orbital angular momentum because you are already taking care of it you are calculating based on that ok.


Hello my friends, this is Susan Jenkins here in Monet Cafe, and I'm talking softly because I've been trying to sneak away and paint all day. Have you ever had that happen when you just really want to paint but just life gets in the way and there's too much going on? So I have the door closed in my studio here, and I just quickly picked something off of paint my photo. Like I've shared before, save up some of the photos so that when you get that artistic urge you're just ready to go. So I'm like, all right, I like this photo. That's a really cool photo. And what I did is I just picked a palette. I tried to pick a few things that were more of the neutral palette and use a lot of those and just sparingly use some of the colors that make things pop. And what I'm going to be doing is using kind of my one of my standard surfaces that I use a lot, which is the it's just matte board. You could use gator board, matte board, any kind of board that's you know good for for art. And I did my prepared surface with my fluid acrylics. You can look at the other video to see how I did it, but it does have the sanded surface so that it's good for pastels. And what I'm also going to be doing this time is I'm going to be doing kind of a value painting. I've done this before with my color fix primer. This also has a like a tooth to it and some grit, which is good for pastel painting. This is the terracotta color. Again, this is a technique that I've borrowed from Rita Kirkman. She does it so well, but I don't need much of it. So I actually just kind of have the little top of it that's got some on it.  But I'm not going to talk a lot in this one. I just kind of want to paint and enjoy. I may also experiment and try. I have one of the acrylic inks here. I think it is probably Bethany Fields. I learned this from and I haven't even done it very much, but I may do the dark darks of those tree trunks over there with some of this afterwards. I don't know. I've never combined all of this before. So who knows? We'll give it a shot. So anyway, I hope to just relax and paint and have fun. And as always, I hope somebody learns something because I certainly always do. All right, guys. Enjoy. I know I'm going to. Here we go.