Simple steps to become a digital nomad and travel the world. Sounds great, doesn't it? You can do it. In this video, I'm going to show you how you can actually earn a living and do it in any country in the world that you want. There are some things you've got to look out for, and I'm going to cover those, and there's a couple problems you could run into, and I'm going to cover those in this video, but I'm going to show you how to do it. So stay tuned, watch to the end, and I think you'll be very happy. If you haven't done so yet, please do me a favor and subscribe below with that subscribe button. If it's red, click it, turn a gray, and a bell will pop up. Turn on all bell notifications so you're notified each and every time I go live, and you don't miss a video, okay? I can let you know about it, and also when I upload videos, so either way, you'll be notified about it. Give me a thumbs up if you liked this video, I would really appreciate it. It's that button right down there with the thumb, if you could do that, that would be cool. Do it right now if you want. Thank you for those of you who did it. Thank you so much. I do appreciate it. That helps the video a lot. So I want to talk about this digital nomad thing. First off, it's not going to be, and I hate to be honest, but I have to be honest with you guys. It's not going to be you sitting by the pool with a laptop barely working. You've got to work hard, okay? You've got to work hard. You can travel the world. You can make a lot of money, and I'm showing you how to do that in this video. However, you're going to have to put in the effort, okay? Now I know I've been putting in effort for almost over a decade, okay? Over a decade online, but I also know that there are times when I can just kick back and do nothing, okay? But it's not an everyday thing. It just being able to sell online allows me freedom with my time to work anywhere I want and to make really good money. And every now and then I'll treat myself and I'll do nothing, okay? I will sit by the pool, but I don't even bring the laptop. So you can do that, too. Okay. So let's define first off what is a digital nomad? A digital nomad is nothing more than somebody who works online, okay? That's the first part of it, but they work anywhere they want. Anywhere they want, which is pretty cool. I have several friends who are digital nomads. And they may spend, you know, two months in a country. They may spend six months in a country. I will tell you this, when you're a digital nomad, I wouldn't say, you know, move from week to week to week to week. If you were to do that, you burn up so much time traveling, it's just not worth it. Get in an area and stay there and enjoy the area for a little bit, okay? Spend a little bit of time there. The number one thing I'd tell you to do is to start to reduce location ties and expenses. And here's what I mean by that. You may want to consider selling your car. I think most of the digital nomads I know don't even own a car. You also have to look at the monthly expenses you may not pay attention to. Maybe there's gym memberships, stuff like that. Sports memberships, those type of things. In addition to that, there's other things that you're paying on a monthly basis that you won't be paying on the road. But there's also expenses that you don't want to be paying. So, that was one of the things that I wanted to tell you about.  It's much better to go on the road with no debt. I'm not saying everybody can do that, but if you can go on the road with no debt, it releases you from having to earn quite as much money while you're on the road. Number two, join a digital community. A digital nomad community. There's one called Location Indie. Location Indie. I'll put the link right here for Location Indie. And you can meet other people. You can see what they're doing. You can see what they're doing. You can see what they're doing. And you can meet other people. You can see how they're earning money. You can see where they're staying. You're seeing how they handle their insurance, their health, their wealth, whatever. And they can give you insight and tips. So, join one of these communities and you can learn a lot from them. Number three, identify your skills. How can you make money online? I have several videos on this channel that you can watch on how to make money online. And I would direct you to one of those. So, just go to the search bar on my channel and type in make money online. I'm sure you're going to find plenty of videos like that. But maybe you already have some skills. Maybe you speak English and you'd like to teach English online.  Maybe you can do web design. Maybe you can do SEO. Maybe you want to be an assistant to somebody. You can do that. You can be assistant to several people as long as they don't need you all day long. And that's not the agreement. So, check into all the skills you have. You probably have the skills right now that you need to make money online. Number four, become a freelancer. There are so many different sites now. Like Freelancer.com. There's Upwork.com. There's WeWork.com. And you can go in there and there's so many different opportunities to make money. I would suggest you just going to one of these sites and looking at the areas that you think you'd like to make some money. Now, the one thing I hear drives me crazy. People will say, well, how can I make money online with no skills? You could with no skills. You could answer phones. You could answer jobs that you could do with no skills. How about looking at the jobs on there that pay the most and getting those skills? That may be the sensible thing to do. And that's what I tell people. Look at the jobs that are paying a lot of money. Maybe it's programming. Maybe it's coding. Maybe you're good at that. Maybe you enjoy that. I don't enjoy that. But maybe I could help somebody with e-commerce. I'm good at that and I enjoy that. And I can make a lot of money doing that. You can develop those skills. You can put your profile on one of these sites and you can start making money. Now, alternatively to those things, number five is work in another country. Just go to another country and get a job there. You can live in another country and work for a period of time. Now, a lot of people will do this with bartending or waitressing or whatever. But you know what? Maybe there's an accounting firm in Europe that you'd like to work for for a while. There are a lot of opportunities out there. If you're working a job in the U.S. and you just want to go to another country, go to that country and get a job. It's really that simple. A lot of these countries will allow you to do a work-type visa where you're working for a company for a period of time. So that's another alternative for you. Number six is build your own business. And what I mean by that is if you've been doing some freelancing work or you looked at some of the freelancing work that's out there, you'll notice that you're working for businesses. That's why you're working for somebody you're putting descriptions in on their website because they have an e-commerce site. Why not do your own e-commerce site? You know how to do the descriptions, right? You can actually start your own business and run it from anywhere in the world. That's what I do. That's what I do right now is I have a couple of businesses, several of them actually, but I sell online. So it doesn't really matter where I'm at. As long as I have good Internet service, that's a big caveat.  But they need to have better Internet. But the point is I can work from anywhere as long as I have Internet. And so can you. Number seven is select your first destination. That's what you got to do. You got to pick a destination. Now, there's a lot of factors that go into this. Some of you may be saying, well, I want to live on the cheap. I want to live as inexpensively as possible. Well, you'll want to check out countries that are good for that, that have low cost of living. Some of you may say, no, no, I want certain things.   I will put up on the screen. There's no mad list. You can see it on the screen right now.  There's a lot of suggestions there. But be honest with yourself about what you like and what you don't like. You may get into a country where there's a language barrier and you don't speak the language, and that may be really irritating for you or it may not bother you at all. Or you may want to learn the language. So be honest with yourself and just pick your first destination. Number eight is figure out how you want to live. There's so many options here, guys. Maybe if you want to be by yourself, you want to be private, you may want to get an Airbnb.  You can get a place in a hostel. Those are very, very inexpensive. Maybe you want a hotel where you have access to room service and somebody doing your laundry and cleaning your room. That's also an alternative. So be honest with yourself about what you want and what you're willing to give up because you certainly give up something by being a digital nomad, okay?  But if that's not what you want, then you're heading in the right direction, so that's okay too. Just decide how you want to live. Number nine, create a plan and stick with it, okay? Create a plan and stick with it. Decide what you're going to do. Decide how many hours a day and make some time for leisure, sure. But you're going to have to work unless you're independently wealthy, unless you have a good flow of cash flow coming in every month, you're going to have to work. And the best way to get things done is to have a schedule and a routine. I know it sounds boring, but having that schedule and that routine is what's going to keep you on the road and keep you going to all these different countries you want to go to. You've got to work a certain number of hours a day and you know what you're going to have to do with your lifestyle. It may take you a few months to figure it out, but pretty soon you're going to say, hey, I'm going to have to work six hours in the evening because a lot of my clients are in this country and that's when the time works, okay? Or you may say, I'm going to have to work eight or 10 hours a day in my e-commerce business to keep everything rolling the way it should. Whatever it is, pick it and stick with it so that you're successful. And for some final thoughts, just because you haven't done something doesn't mean you can't do something. A lot of times people say, well, I've never done that before. I've never traveled abroad before. I've never made money online before. Or I can't imagine traveling to different countries every few months because I've never done that before. It doesn't matter what you've done before. It doesn't matter what you've done before. It doesn't mean you can't do it. Let me emphasize this. This is easier than you think it is if you're serious about it. If you're serious about it, if you've never talked about it, you'll research it, you'll plan it, you'll put it together, and you'll make it happen. I know you will. If nobody's ever told you that, I'm here to tell you that. You can do it. You can do it. I promise you, you can do it. It's not that hard. And the reason I know it's not that hard is because I see too many people doing it. I see too many people working online on the road. And you know, after the illness that hit the world, there are so many companies now that hire people that can work from home. And some of the big major companies like Apple are hiring people to work from home. Google hires people to work from home. A lot of doctors' offices hire people to work from home. It doesn't really matter where you live to a lot of these people. If you want to stay in the same profession, find a company that will let you work from home. You don't even have to tell them where you live, right? You can still use an address at the U.S. anywhere in the world. It doesn't matter as long as you get your work done. So don't feel like you have to have a business. Don't feel like you have to work for a business. Don't feel like you've got to be a freelancer. You can do any of these things. You can do any combination of these things and actually be a digital no man. I hope this video helped you out. I hope it gave you some insight. If so, give me a thumbs up. Do that for me. And subscribe if you'd like more content like this. Don't forget to ring the bell. Turn on all bell notifications so you're notified when I upload a new video. That's it, I think. I hope it helped you out. Give me your comments below if you have suggestions for other videos. If you have questions about this subject matter or anything that has to do with making money online, feel free to put it in the comments section below. Let me know your successes and, of course, your failures. We can all learn from those two. Thanks so much for watching this video. As a gift, I have a $97 course down there you can click and learn and get that gift. No credit card required. That's pretty cool stuff. If you're down there, you may want to check out my reading list is down there. Some of the books I recommend, check those out too. Thanks so much for watching this video and I'll see you in the next one.


football player out there on the court. How would you describe your game? I don't know if I would necessarily say that. Shot wasn't falling, so you got to try and impact the game in other ways. We talked a lot about just setting guys to the glass, especially late in the game, when you need extra possessions. And sometimes your fortune in the ball bounces your way. Other times it doesn't, but you still got to crash. Be the aggressor out there. And I was looking to get the ball to bounce my way a couple of times. All wins feel good, but what was the mood like in the locker room after this one? It's just nice to remember this feeling, what it feels like to get a win, to kind of get out of that rut. And I think across the board, each guy's thinking about building off of this and how we can take it from one win to two, to three, and so on and so forth. Kind of positive vibes around the franchise right now. Given the injury situation with Kairis returning, Kyrie returning to practice yesterday, what kind of boost energy wise did that give the team? Yeah, huge boost. I think our problem, or sort of our Achilles heel this whole season has just been injuries. We've battled a lot of guys with different injuries throughout the season, even now. Garrett and Wilson had to sit tonight, so we didn't even have a full lineup tonight. Obviously, we haven't had Kyrie for a majority of the season, haven't had Kairis. But the fact that these guys are coming around, Garrett and Will hopefully, they're coming around as well. There's just a lot of reasons to be optimistic. At the end of the day, all you can ask for is to have a full roster. What do what needs to carry over from what you guys did most of this game, particularly late in that fourth quarter, as you get ready to head into this matchup with L.M.? I think just carrying over the fact, trying to be the aggressor, I thought, especially there in the fourth quarter, we just did a good job. Getting those 50-50 balls, sort of the hustle plays, which we haven't gotten sort of late in the game. We did a better job of executing as well on both ends, getting the stops when we needed to. And hopefully, you don't want to be in that scenario necessarily every game, but this is the NBA. Comes down to a lot of close games, and it's all about who can execute down the stretch.


This paper proposes a novel method for automatically detecting penguins from aerial images. The authors have developed a deep learning model, YOLO PD, which uses a combination of multiple frequency features fusion modules and bottleneck aggregation layers to improve the detection performance of small penguins. Additionally, they have incorporated a transformer aggregation layer and efficient attention module to filter out background noise and capture global features. This has resulted in an increase in accuracy compared to other models such as faster RCNN and YOLOV-7. This article was authored by Jehui Wu, Wansu, Jamfang He, and others.


Good morning everybody, my name is Barry Colfer and I'm the director of research here at the IIEA. I'm really pleased to welcome you to this special webinar. We're really delighted to be joined today by Kate Clayton, who is research officer at the TROBE University in Melbourne, who has been generous enough to take time out of her schedule to speak with us. What worth this event is contending with time zones, so I'd like to thank Kate for joining us rather late in the day, and I'd like to thank our audience for joining us rather early in the day if it's unusual time of half nine local time. I must say I've really been looking forward to this meeting and to hearing from Kate, obviously Australian Ireland are tied together for generations. It's a great mix of kinship and business and association between the two countries. And it's really great to have this opportunity to be together and to talk about the recent important election in Australia, which has ushered in a new phase in Australian and indeed regional politics. Kate is going to speak to us for about 20 minutes or so. And then as is customary this will be followed by questions and answers with you our audience and with myself, the chair. And as you'll be able to join the discussion using the Q&A function on Zoom, which you should see on your screen. And as always, please feel free to send your questions in throughout the session as they occur to you. I'll come to as many of them with Kate as possible once presentation is finished. A reminder that today's presentation and Q&A are both on the record. Please feel free to join the discussion on Twitter using the handle at IIEA. So let me introduce Kate Clayton to you before handing over. Kate Clayton is a research officer at the Latrobe University in Melbourne Research Centre, excuse me, at Latrobe Asia is tripping over the word a research centre based at Latrobe University Melbourne. Kate's research focuses on security policy, geopolitics and climate change in Australia and the Indo-Pacific. And her work has been featured in a wide range of impressive publications, including the conversation, the Canberra Times, the Australian Institute of International Affairs, and the Perth US Asia Centre to name but a few. Kate is also a frequent media contributor, and it's contributed to outlets including ABC News and The Age. Kate is Chief Operations Officer at Young Australians in International Affairs. Kate holds an MA in International Relations from the University of Melbourne, a BA from Natrobe University. Kate has also studied at Chongqing University in China. Kate, it's a real pleasure and I'll hand you the floor for 20 minutes. Kate, thanks so much Barry and the team at IIEA for having me here tonight. So before I begin, as is custom in Australia, I'd like to acknowledge the wandering people of the cooler nation, the lands on which I'm hosting from today. Sovereignty in Australia was never ceded. We are the only Commonwealth country that didn't sign a treaty with the Indigenous people. Australia as a settler colony has never signed a treaty with First Nations people.  So geographically, Australia is in the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific is similar geographically to Asia, but it's more of a strategic redefining of the region, demonstrating the shift in balance of power in the region. The Indo-Pacific isn't a new term. It dates back to the 1900s, used by Germany as well as Japan. But since the 2010s, the term has regained popularity, particularly with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, and you're seeing this presentation, there is a kind of over-saturation of multilateral dialogues in the region that I'm sure I'll get tongue tied with throughout the session. But the Quad States, Japan, the US, India and Australia are the kind of key proponents of this Indo-Pacific, and that's at the centre of Australia's foreign policy and many of the foreign policies in the region. So many people think that it was the US and Australia that really pushed this new reconception to the Indo-Pacific, but it was former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's term as early leader that really pushed the term. For Australia and the US, I would say the Indo-Pacific is a way to redefine the region away from China and towards other regional powers, primarily India and Indonesia. It's also a way to justify it as well as anchor their own existence in a region where they don't really look like everyone else. One of the things that I think the Indo-Pacific is the most useful for is how it centres the oceans in its strategic frame in. The strategy seeks to join the Indian and the Pacific oceans, emphasising the importance of the maritime in this new geopolitical era. It also means that climate change, or in theory, be the centre of Indo-Pacific policies, has a strategy that focuses on the ocean, must also focus on climate change. So this brings us to the Australian election just over a month ago. Labour leader Anthony Albanese was elected to be the 31st Prime Minister of Australia after over a decade of Conservative Liberal Party leadership. During that period, Australia and the region underwent enormous change. Here in Australia since 2020, in the past few years alone, we've seen catastrophic flooding, bushfires, borders closed and reopened after long closures, and just as everyone has experienced now rising costs of living. All of this has been alongside the Russian invasion of Ukraine and an increasingly competitive and insecure Indo-Pacific region. Like elections globally since COVID, this election felt a lot more high stakes than previous ones. So the election has been described as the khaki election, in which national security conflict and defence heavily influenced election discourses. Khaki elections have a long history in Westminster systems. Australia's political system is known as the Wash Minister, so it's a combination of both the US and the UK governments. The term was first referred to in the 1900 British election during the Second World War, and by having a khaki election in Australia, it drew upon the Liberal Party's historical track record as the National Security Party. The khaki election is the culmination of the Scott Morrison foreign policy strategy that placed national security and defence at the centre of Australia's international relations. This was matched with consecutive cuts to aid and diplomacy, seeing Australia's place in the world shrink as the border Indo-Pacific region manages US-China competition as well as climate change. The security pact recently signed by China and the Solomon Islands exposed the cracks in the Liberal government strategy, allowing the opposition leader and now the winning party, Labour, to draw upon their experience in diplomacy, regionalism and climate change. The Labour Party, our new government, have a long tradition of a more regionalist foreign policy, while the Liberal Party prefers bilateral international relations as a middle power with a strong tradition of multilateralism. Australia under the Labour Party has embedded itself into Indo-Pacific institutions, so we have ASEAN, the East Asia Forum, Pacific Island Forum as well as the Asia Pacific Economic Corporation, which was founded by former Labour Prime Minister Bob Ork in 1989. It's still pretty early days in the election, it's been just over a month, but already we've seen the Albanese government really embrace the Indo-Pacific region. Only three hours after being sworn into office, Albanese flew to Tokyo for the Quad Leaders meeting, and on that plane ride over to the Quad, he made his first international call as Prime Minister and it was to Boris Johnson. I think this is evidence of where the new government is putting its international focus, simultaneously the US and UK, increasing our relations with those traditional allies, but also the Indo-Pacific and I think it's going to be quite difficult, not difficult, but a challenge for the government in terms of how you juggle your relations with great powers, but also really anchoring Australia in the broader Indo-Pacific. So the new regional agenda of the Albanese government has been led by our new Foreign Minister Penny Wong. As a fellow international relations nerd, if I say Penny really stands out from previous foreign ministers in recent history for her genuine love of diplomacy and the region, including Australia's place in the world and our engagement with the Indo-Pacific. Key speeches by Wong over the years reference key international relations figures in history and academia. And since the election, again, just over a month ago, Wong has visited Fiji, Samoa, New Zealand, and is currently in Vietnam and Malaysia, so I've already a really packed schedule and Parliament hasn't even commenced and that won't commence until July. Penny Wong has emphasized the list spin in her foreign policy, which is I think are really underrated and often forgotten skill as a foreign minister. I think it's also important to note here the importance of Australia now having a Malaysian born queer female foreign minister. As the recent census came out in the past few days and I think the UK one will say came out recently, 51% of Australians come from a migrant background, but they make up only about 10% of our Parliament. Furthermore, same sex marriage in Australia was only legalized in 2017, which was also the last time I was in the UK. So there was this unspoken rule in Australian foreign policy that has happened for the past few decades, but it's where the first state that a Prime Minister visits is Indonesia. So that couldn't quite happen the Quad meeting, but as soon as Albanese was back on his next plane, he went to Indonesia. So Indonesia is key to Australia's foreign policy political relations have struggled over decades issues between various leaders, but people to people relations remain incredibly strong. And it's our second closest neighbor with PNG being the closest on centering climate change, which is the whole kind of theme of this talk of its foreign policy. The new government has committed 200 million just to Indonesia for a climate infrastructure program. This will be key as Indonesia is going to be amongst the hardest hit by climate change, and they're already in the process of relocating their entire capital city, which would just be a logistical nightmare. In the Pacific, Australia is going to bid to host a cop with its Pacific partners as well as facilitate the Pacific climate infrastructure financing program. And overall we're predicted to see an enhanced diplomatic capability, defense and security cooperation with what the government terms effective climate leadership. Again, we're a month in, we don't really know what that looks like, but as I'm going to talk about a little bit soon, effective like climate leadership has to be matched with to point with domestic climate policy. As I said, this is all really great policy and it's welcomed in the region, particularly by the US, the UK and the Pacific. But one of the biggest challenges for the Albanese government will be domestic climate policy and maintaining this momentum on international climate strategy. Last year at Copping Glasgow, Morrison announced a 26% emissions reduction by 2030, which is not enough to hit any goals. Albanese has recommitted Australia to 43% by 2030 and in his ministry, key labour politicians have been tasked with environmental portfolios and he's ordered an intelligence review of the security threats posed by climate change. This is a welcome shift after a sense of climate frustration, marked Morrison's leadership, his inaction during the 2020 bushfires where Morrison was holidaying in Hawaii as homes burnt was especially notable. At the beginning of this year we had catastrophic flux in New Zealand and New South Wales Queensland, where 22 lives were lost homes and infrastructure was destroyed and supply change issue called national food shortages. As I'm presenting now there are massive protests in Sydney and climate change. I grew up in regional Australia where often I had school days canceled due to bushfires, and I even missed important senior exams as fires had burned the train lines and I couldn't make it to school. So for Australia climate change is a frontline issue, the recent Lowy Institute poll that was launched just today indicated that the majority of Australians want to see see global warming as a serious issue, and that if we don't start taking steps now there'll be significant costs. So Australia is a resource rich country and we rely heavily on exports from coal mines. This is in governments trade off economic prosperity and security of exporting coal over renewable energy and keeping greenhouse gas emissions low. As the world's highest greenhouse gas emitter of coal per capita. This is despite the majority of Australians supporting reduced coal exports banning new coal mines more ambitious climate targets and expanding our renewable energy. The climate frustration was manifested in this election with the rise of teal independence who are conservative candidates, but they have climate focused platforms. One of the really interesting things about these two candidates just from an international perspective is that whilst they have a really big climate change focus. It doesn't translate into their foreign policy they don't really look at international climate change. They look at leadership as a key platform they look at traditional issues orcas and the quad, as well as China, but they haven't quite made the leap from domestic climate policy to international climate policy. So after slow and poor climate policy over the last decades there was this kind of collective sigh of relief across the nation, as Albanese was elected. That being said, as I mentioned earlier, the key challenge will be transferring this new climate momentum into domestic policy. Australian politics remains heavily hamstrung by mining lobbies who have impeded climate action for over a decade now, including the last time the labor government were in power. The domestic work on climate change will be key to unlocking climate action internationally. If we aren't seen to be making a concerted effort at home on climate change, our international climate diplomacy will be seen as hypocritical. Australia's climate in action affects not just Australians, these policies have global consequences. The Indo-Pacific will feel the effects of climate change first and hardest. Australia's reputation as a climate laggard under the liberal government has negatively affected our relationships with the region. This is seen in the Pacific where Australia has been called out for its weak climate targets, and some even blame Australia's climate in action for the recent Solomon Islands-China security relations. It's even hampered our relations with the UK. So last year, Australia and the UK signed the first free trade agreement. The European government wanted there to be Paris climate targets in the FTA. However, recently leaked documents revealed that the Morrison government pushed the UK to take the climate targets out. And despite the UK's really strong and quite exemplary climate leadership last year, something which I think Albanese could look quite closely to. The UK's desire for a post-Brexit free trade agreement with Australia hampered its own climate commitments. That phone call that I mentioned at the start between Johnson and Albanese emphasised a good change for Australia-UK collaboration. The leaders agreed that there was a strong alignment between their governments to an agenda, including security, climate change and trade. So hopefully we might see some climate commitments reintroduced into the free trade agreement, or at least unofficially. Another good development that features both the UK and Australia is the establishment of the partners in the Blue Pacific, which happened just over the weekend. So it's a partnership with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the UK and the US, France, another Pacific state. We're in earlier drafts of the partnership, but not much information is around just yet on why France are no longer in that agreement. So the partnership in the Blue Pacific is the culmination of many Pacific strategies. So recently the UK had its Indo-Pacific tilt. This was pre-cursed by Australia's Pacific step-up, New Zealand's Pacific reset, all of these big terms that essentially just mean more Pacific engagement. Alongside these regional Indo-Pacific strategies, Pacific leaders are pushing for their own group roaming of the region, one that centres Pacific voices and climate change as key to regional dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. The Blue Pacific concept aims to redefine the region from small island states to large ocean states. And again, this goes back to the oceanic nature of the Indo-Pacific as a concept. The partners in the Blue Pacific facilitates a more effective, efficient cooperation in support of Pacific island priorities, building upon the commitments made by each of the individual partner states. The group hopes to bolster Pacific regionalism, expand opportunities between Pacific and the rest of the world on issues such as maritime security, connectivity and transportation, health, education, climate, a range of issues. And I think this is a really good step for Australia, the UK and other partners, and goes back to Penny Wong's listening to the region. However, it's vital for the new Albanese government as well as the other partners of the partners of the Blue Pacific, so many multilateral acronyms, that their foreign policies don't hamper local Pacific diplomacy. The Pacific leaders are leaders on climate change diplomacy and have been for decades. And the best thing that the Albanese can do to support Pacific voices is to listen to them and to uplift and engage them. For example, if Australia is successful in hosting a COP with the Pacific, Pacific and First Nations voices should be at the centre of the conference. And this brings us to what might just be the hallmark of Albanese and Wong's foreign policy, and that's the announcement of a First Nations foreign policy. So we haven't gotten much information on this, but the new government, and I'm quoting Wong here, aimed to have a First Nations foreign policy that leaves the voices and the practices of the world's continuing, oldest continuing culture into the way we talk to the world and the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It will include appointing an ambassador of First Nations people as well as the establishment of an office of First Nations engagement within our Department of Foreign Affairs. I think this is going to be a big step for Australian foreign policy, and it looks quite similar to the indigenous foreign policy that we're seeing in New Zealand as well. And ultimately, it's going to be welcomed by our neighbours who have been asking for more First Nations engagement. As I mentioned above, Australia is a settler colony, we're located in the Indo-Pacific on unceded land. This has seen Australia seek out great and powerful friends for our security guarantee, including the UK and the US primarily. And this is what I think is the most telling about Orcas, whilst it's a breakthrough for Australian defence infrastructure and a much needed modernisation about capability capabilities and also trilateral engagement. It's seen Australia return to the anguish for its security, just as the balance of power is shifting towards Asia. Moving forward, I think Albanese is going to be grappling with two main issues that I've discussed. Firstly, it will have to manage its historical and increasing relations with the UK and the US alongside its push in the Indo-Pacific. Whether that's as we saw taking a call from Johnson on the way to a Quad meeting, how we're going to navigate that I think is going to be really key going forward. And the labour government have really strong support for Orcas as well. So having Orcas as a multilateral, trilateral institution engages with the Indo-Pacific is also going to be really telling. I think the partners for the Blue Pacific is a good example of incorporating your traditional alliances, Anglo, including Japan, into the broader Indo-Pacific region. And our second key issue is matching international climate diplomacy to our domestic policy and following through our own domestic commitment. So I haven't spoken much about China today and I think this is emblematic of the very little engagement Australia and China have had over the past few years as our bilateral relationship has worsened. And reached its lower point and I'm happy to talk more about China in the Q&A as well. But I think to conclude the biggest issues for the Albanese government are following through on its commitments to the Indo-Pacific and climate change. Rhetoric and medians are all good, but it's action and policy that are going to count in the region during these uncontested times.


Hello everyone and welcome to this 20 minute session in which I will guide you through the creative process of constructing a custom dashboard. In this quick introductory presentation I am going to describe my application example running on the MCU. You will see which runtime variables we will be remotely monitoring and visualize them and which peripheral registers we will be modifying on the fly directly from the dashboard. In a step by step we will create the dashboard and practically play with the tool and examine the access to the target. And finally I will demonstrate the remote access from a different personal device. So first how such a development process looks like. We configured and generated the code by CubeMX then developed the generated code by Cube IDE and programmed MCU target either using directly Cube IDE or Cube programmer. And finally the Cube monitor allows us to remotely access the application running on the MCU. The application setup looks like this. You need a PC with a supported operating system, a USB cable and a stealing programmer which in this case is already mounted on a nuclear development board. In this example I configured one channel for PWM to be sampled by ADC peripheral. The monitored runtime variable is the voltage sampled by ADC and stored in a RAM memory. After that I will show you how to directly access registers to modify duty cycle and frequency of the generated PWM signal. So that's all for the introduction and let's jump in Cube Monitor to construct the dashboard.


If you reject people when they are doing the unthinkable You will not live to see a day when they will do the impossible if we reject people When they are high We won't live to see a day When they're filled with the most high If we reject people when they got admitted to you know to the jail Not because of preaching the gospel in the mall But because of some other unhealthy reasons if we reject people when they fall and they stumble and we completely push it away And say I don't want to do nothing with you my friends We won't live a day to see when these people can do great things for God even better things that we can do can somebody say amen When Apostle Paul before he was a Paul he was a murderer He went around killing Christians went around dragging people out of their houses and admitting them into prison He comes to Damascus with letters from the high priest to do exactly the same But God meets him. It makes him blind and when he goes into and he spends their three days without eating and without Drinking cries out to God and in some other house in Damascus. God tells Ananias Ananias go to the street The straight street and in this house ask for Saul Ananias said who? Saul who? He said yes Saul the one who has papers to take you Ananias into prison Go to his house Ananias and pray for him. Lord before I lay hands on him He lay hands on me and deliver me into prison I am not going God and this is what God tells Ananias Ananias You see him as a man who does the unthinkable, but I already see him as a man who will do the impossible I see him as a man who ride the two turrets of New Testament see You see him as a murderer. I see him as a murderer I see that Apostle Paul will spread the gospel everywhere and that he at the end of his life He will die being beheaded for the cause of Christ and some history says that the guys who were carrying him to get Beheaded some of them got saved because how Boisterous and passionate Paul was my friends never give up and we as church have to have a soft heart in our heart For those who are doing the worst Because usually they're the ones who are the best for God those were the most Insin the most serving God because when they get saved they don't like look warm Christianity They don't like sit in church for eight years and not start a home group They don't understand how you can be a Christian and not pray They don't if doesn't fit into their mind how you can serve God and not love people and save people and heal people They want to go radical for God and God says if you don't reject them when they doing the unthinkable I can turn it around and make him do the impossible Because somebody say amen This is the vision This is the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Thank you all for being here. We're going to start with some remarks to frame the discussion that Garrett will give us. Thanks. I had a moment of panic when I got here because they said, are you ready for your panel on the resilient Constitution? I said, oh my God, is this on the Brazilian Constitution? Which I wasn't prepared to talk about. But I think in terms of the theme of this conference, the most remarkable thing about the U.S. Constitution is simply that it has survived as long as it has. The people that framed it didn't necessarily expect it to last this long. Some thought in terms of 25 years, at one point in the Philadelphia Convention, Madison was worried that if the country grew to a certain point, the House of Representatives would get too big, and Nathaniel Gorham popped up and said, you know, basically seriously, grandpa, why are you wondering about this? You don't really think this country will still be what it is in 150 years.  That it has survived owes a great deal to that framing generation, but not in the way that we are ordinarily told. That is, we ordinarily told that they foresaw the future, they understood what was going to happen, they provided a guide for everything, which is clearly incorrect. What they understood was that the Constitution was an open-ended way of confronting unforeseen problems, and this is laid out by Hamilton in Federalist 34, where he's talking about people who are saying, oh, this government is going to be too powerful, and he says nothing can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power proper to be lodged in the national government. From an estimate of its immediate necessities, there ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies as they may happen, and as these are limitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity. What the philosophy of constitutional interpretation at that time was basically viewed the Constitution not as an orchestral score that was going to be played over and over with the original instruments by the Society for Ancient Music, but more like a fake book that musicians can use to improvise. And in terms of that kind of constitutional interpretation, the founding, the early federal period, was really the bebop era of constitutional interpretation. The first major controversy, which I could talk about for hours and we'll try not to, occurred a year after the Constitution went into effect when they realized they'd forgotten to put a mechanism in it to remove people from the cabinet. Nobody knew how a cabinet minister left office. Some people said, oh, well, it must serve for life. Other people said only by impeachment. Others said the Senate has to be part of it, and there's a great debate about this in the House, which Madison leads. And today I think we would expect him to stand up and say, oh, yeah, my bad. We totally intended for the President to be able to do that, so that settles it. But he doesn't do that. He sounds like Richard Posner in Buckle Shoes. He says, we must decide on the correct construction from its consequences. Which one will be more conducive toward the success of the government and liberty? And he says, in my judgment, the consequences are more favorable from allowing the President to remove without Senate involvement, and that's the interpretation that was adopted. That was before Madison discovered strict construction. Strict construction is not an originalist philosophy. It's something they came up with 10 years later because they suddenly thought, we don't like the way the country's going. Let's say that the government can't do all this stuff. And as an actual philosophy, strict construction lasts roughly three years because in 1801, Jefferson became President, and power suddenly didn't look quite so scary. In 1803, he had the opportunity to buy Louisiana, which would mean that forever the new country would not be surrounded and hemmed in by the imperial powers of Europe. It was a defining moment in American history. The only problem was that the Constitution did not say that the federal government could acquire new territory. Jefferson believed that it couldn't. He believed that it was unconstitutional. He believed that in order to buy Louisiana, there had to be a constitutional amendment. And he writes a letter on this subject in 1803 by William Cury Nicholas that contains one of the most famous phrases in constitutional interpretation because he says, let me find it here. He says, our peculiar security is the possession of a written constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. And that is often quoted as, you know, this is how we should read the Constitution. But if you read the whole letter, he goes through another paragraph saying, on the other hand, if I don't buy Louisiana right now, Napoleon is going to change his mind. So then he says at the end, basically, oh well, he says about strict construction. He says, if however our friends think differently, I shall acquiesce with satisfaction confiding that the good sense of the country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce ill effects. So Louisiana is bought strict construction, not so much. Let me skip forward to something that relates much more directly to an interpretive problem we have right now. I want to read from a brief filed with the United States Supreme Court about a statute that used the commerce power. The present statute departs markedly from any prior statute sustained as an exercise of the commerce power. It is incapable of being regarded as within the scope of any other statutes or decisions. There is no statutory precedent to support the solicitor general's position in this case. It is within the court's proper prerogative to look with deep concern at an assertion of power never before upheld. This brief was filed in the 1964 case of Katzenbach versus McClung. And too much later the Supreme Court held that Congress did have the power to require Ollie's barbecue, a segregated restaurant in Birmingham to serve African-Americans in its dining room. The unprecedented Civil Rights Act of 1964 was upheld. And it turns out as we look back, any economic historian I think would say this was a crucial milestone in making the United States a single national market that everyone can do business on an equal basis. It's very hard to understand that people thought this can't possibly be a regulation of commerce. This is the end of the world. We're in the middle of another struggle over unprecedented use of the commerce power. And the respondents brief in the state respondents brief in the Affordable Care Act case uses the word unprecedented 19 times. I suggested a drinking game based on it. And the idea is that if we allow this unprecedented use of the commerce power, which the framers never foresaw, we're going to end up in a nightmare dystopia dictatorship. And here is one frightening possibility. Assume Congress finds that narrow handled baseball bats are injurious to the public and therefore prescribes a minimum diameter for bats moving in commerce. To effectuate this law, Congress could prohibit a person from whittling the handle of a bat that had moved in commerce. But could Congress also prohibit this person from hitting his wife with the bat? Or could the government regulate the recipient of the bat in conduct which intrinsically is unconnected with the bat? Okay, I'm cheating again. This is also from the briefing Katzenbeck vs. McClung. I leave it to you to figure out why southern segregationists were particularly afraid that Congress would stop them from hitting people with bats. In our gentler era, the horribles connected with the Affordable Care Act center around citizens being forced to eat unappetizing snacks, broccoli, no french fries and so forth. Maybe that will happen. I don't know. Sure. I suppose it's theoretically possible. Look, there were no baseball bat regulation acts after the Civil Rights Act. What there has been instead is the use of the commerce power in a way that I think we can all be proud of to expand human equality and democracy by extending basic civil rights to the disabled, to the aged, to women. The use of this power has given rise to none of the fears that have been generated about it. And my basic thought is that in terms of interpretation, a Constitution that survived the Louisiana Purchase and the Civil War and the New Deal in the 60s probably has enough snap left in it not to crumple at the minimum coverage provision either. And probably the way to think about this case is to take Jefferson's sort of cheerful approach and confide that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce ill effects. So with that. Thank you. That was great. Okay. Perhaps you as a clear defender of the Constitution don't actually think it needs to bounce back and be resilient from very much. I wonder in this era of real government involvement in the economy and an incredibly big complicated economy that in so many ways the government is challenged by figuring out how to help along and also corral. Whether that raises new challenges for the Constitution. I mean we have this phrase interstate commerce into which we have packed and unpacked at various times, argued over meaning. Do we need more as the Constitution kind of up to this challenge of the scope and role of government? Well I think that's a fascinating question because we actually are beginning to get data on this. First of all in the general sense we have 100 years of data because beginning with the progressive era we have had some fairly systematic regulation of the economy and the growth of the administrative state. And there is no article 8 of the Constitution that says here's how administrative agencies shall work. We've had to piece it together by constructing article 2 and contrasting which is the executive versus article 1 which is what does the legislative have. And that constantly is being explored but it has not yet given rise to disaster in my judgment and it has helped us address a number of problems. A number of people thought we had crossed some kind of rubicon in 2008, 2009. And I will never forget in September of 2009 at a preview for the October 2009 term, former judge now professor Mike McConnell saying the constitutional issues before us have changed radically because never before has the government moved in as the owner and manager of a substantial share of the economy and our system simply cannot accommodate this. It's going to give rise to a crisis. What's fascinating to me is that and this goes to the question of resilience because I actually think the Constitution is pretty resilient. We are now, you know, two and a half years on from that pronouncement and what's happened is that without much fanfare the government has begun to move back out of this radical new position. The government doesn't own General Motors anymore. The government isn't running all the banks. The economy, we're returning to something like the regulated economy we had before because again the Constitution and its values and remember going back to Madison, what Madison kept saying in the removal debate was let's look at the interpretation that has the best immediate consequences and is consistent with the values of the Constitution. The values of the Constitution steer us in a consistent direction and a lot of the rhetoric that you hear from the losing side in one political struggle or another is that this particular thing has broken the Constitution.  You know, the great beast of revelation is upon us and actually what's happened and what often happens is that politics and society resumes the shape transformed but not radically altered that it was moving in any way without a constitutional crisis. So along those lines, how should we think about changing the Constitution? Are we finished changing it? Do we have the set of amendments that we can tolerate passing or should we think of this as a document which at this point given its couple of hundred years odd age is actually in need of serious structural tinkering and if so is there a real alive mechanism for changing the Constitution? I think the last question is the most lively one right now. The Framers of course, the founding generation, they love tinkering with the Constitution. They amended it 12 times. No other generation is even close.  Let's rewrite the rules, right? You know, Chisholm versus Georgia, Worcester versus Georgia, terrible decision. Let's change it. There are a number of scholars who now say that the Article 5 amendment power is theoretical only, that it is too hard to amend the Constitution. And therefore we need to think about getting rid of it. There's a very serious movement not only among Tea Party people, but Tea Party people are so loyal to the Constitution that they really want to destroy it. But Larry Lessig at Harvard, you know, who is a very admirable progressive is part of this saying, what we really need is to use Article 5 to set up a new constitutional convention, rewrite the whole thing. I kind of have my nervousness about that because I'd have to redo my class notes. But I frankly, I'm not yet convinced that Article 5 is no longer useful. And then if it's still in play, how do we make sure that our hesitations, which I think are there for a good reason about really getting in there, how do we control it? How do we know that the right amendments come through, or is that just a factor of the political process? Well, I think that in order to amend the Constitution it takes such a sustained political impulse that we've seen over and over in the last 20 years. There was a period of time when one party really believed there was no culture war issue that couldn't be solved by changing the Constitution. We have a flag amendment, we're going to have a prayer amendment, we're going to have an abortion amendment, now we're going to have a marriage amendment. And these issues that kind of spike really don't create enough genuine public support to support an amendment, which is probably good. And yeah, Article 5 is still alive, so something could. I think that's right, I think there could really be, and you know, if you look back at the progressive era in which the Constitution was amended to allow for direct election of senators, the imposition of the income tax, votes for women, prohibition, oh that wasn't so good, repeal of prohibition. This was a period of 20 years when the voters, not the politicians who were very reluctant to engage in this process, but the voters were deeply dissatisfied with Gilded Age America and they said, at a very deep level we need to change the Constitution, and that sustained mobilization did change the Constitution, but it also changed politics. And arguably that's not a bad thing. Arguably there should be that much unrest before we change the Constitution. But you know, then they had 30 some states, now we have 50, does that mean it's impossible? I don't know. There's a famous story that comes out of the struggle of the Equal Rights Amendment, which as you know failed just by one or two states, where they thought of re-proposing the Equal Rights Amendment, but not putting the ratification to the state legislatures, because under Article 5 Congress can send an approved amendment to be ratified by conventions in the states that's only been used once for the 21st Amendment. Women's Movement Leaders, and someone proposed this, and they said, well that's a good idea because the amendment is really popular in the country. We've got the polls on our sides, we would win in these conventions. And someone else said, well, let's be aware that this mechanism could be used for other things. You know, and... Riders could be attached to that. Or they could just propose other amendments, and somebody said, well what are you talking about? The chair of this meeting, a very well known feminist said, no, I can get 13 states. There's no problem, we can block that one. And the person said, well, there could be a school prayer amendment. And there was a moment of silence. And then the chair said, well, you know, I wouldn't hurt the little bastards to pray every now and then. So, you know, there are other ways to use Article 5 that we haven't tried, and it may be more flexible than people claim. So I want it, you have a book coming out in August, it's called Wrong and Dangerous, 10 Right-Wing Myths about the Constitution. And I want to give you a chance to talk a little bit about that, and how that your book fits into, I think, a quite impassioned stance you're taking right now about how liberals need to own the Constitution, and talk about it with as much zeal as the right often does. I think that's true. I think that there was a period of time starting in the 1980s when the legal right came up with this idea of originalism. And this was going to be their mechanism to stop any recurrence of the Warren Court because you had to go back and ask what the framers really believed. Originalism as an idea has never really worked, except as a rhetorical trope. And you follow how conservative thinkers re-figured it in the past 30 years because it keeps not working, and then they have to come up with a new part of it. So originally it was original intent. And it was like, well, we don't know what they intended because that was in their heads. Oh, yeah. What we mean is original understanding. And it says, well, the problem with original understanding is that's just understanding what's in the heads of many more people. And they're like, yeah, you're right. We're going to have original understanding, which meant let's look in a lot of dictionaries. And then the problem with that is the dictionaries are inconclusive and who knew people didn't own dictionaries. Now, then somebody said, well, we have original methods originalism, meaning we decide what people would have decided by the methods they used then if they had sat down to decide what the original meaning was. It's a little meta. Right. There's more. If you want, you get the ginsu knives. Because now we have the, someone has written a thing saying we have the problem of political ignorance. Namely, most people never thought about these things. So what we have to do is construct a mythical person and then change that person. It's a little bit like Bill James baseball. You know how they decide whether the 55 Yankees could have beaten the 38 giants by adjusting all the figures. They say, we come up with a mythical person to understand these things, but then we give him that knowledge, then we decide how his attitudes would have changed if he had the knowledge. So it's a little bit like the heliocentric theory of the universe where you keep having to add epicycles to account for the observations. But at the same time we begin to see a movement among more progressive thinkers to look at original, the original list materials. In the way that I have described is to say, what do we learn about the open-ended texture of the Constitution from doing that? And what's remarkable is how much of the material actually doesn't support the kind of interpretation that the legal right has been trying to put on the Constitution for the last 30 years. And even the right is beginning to realize this. So you see a decision like the United States versus Jones, which for futurists I think is very interesting, because the question is whether the government can put a GPS on your car and track you wherever you go without a warrant. And because if you think about it, given how inexpensive GPS technology is, if you don't need a warrant, they could put it on all our cars. And there is computer power, or by Moore's law soon will be, enough to know where everybody is and begin assembling very interesting conclusions politically and otherwise by knowing where everybody is. So this is really an important, present and future-oriented issue. And the court decides 9 to nothing that you need a warrant. But just as Scalia's opinion, which was for four plus a concurrence from Sotomayor, says, obviously the way we understand this is how the founding generation would understand this question. And it ended up being his reasoning what if in 1787 the Philadelphia police had gotten a tiny midget and hidden, I'm not making this up, hidden the midget in your carriage in a place where you couldn't see it so that you could write down everywhere you were. Clearly you couldn't have done that, so you can't do this. And Justice Alito writes an opinion that is openly derisive. You know, this is within the right. Basically saying, get a horse, grandpa, what are you talking about? This is crazy. We need to decide this in the context of a society that is capable of tracking everybody all at once. And so the idea that there's an original intent, which of course is very much part of the Tea Party discourse, has really completely broken down in terms of the people that seriously study these issues. And well, I could go on about that, but I won't. You talked a little bit about the health care case earlier, but I wonder how you feel, there have been sort of two lines on this from the left. One is that this is a very easy case. It's really a slam dunk. All the doctrine is lining up in one way, not to mention the prudential, pragmatic Posner, Thomas Jefferson argument for having a national market for health care and individual mandate. And yet we have this challenge with this enormous amount of time being spent on argument next week and some fear that this case could be politicized in a way that would create the kind of damning 5-4 split that I think pretty much no one would really be that happy about. And I wonder whether you think that the outcome of that case will say a lot about the resilience of the Constitution. It's unusual to have a signature piece of legislation from the standing president before the court in an election year the Obama administration kind of further amped up the drama by removing the argument someone will argue this, but the government is no longer arguing that it's possible for the court to just punt on this case under 19th century law called the Anti-Injunction Act. So we have very high stakes and I wonder whether you feel like the outcome of this case could either be very affirming for the resilience of the Constitution or could really do damage or whether we in the end will see this as only one moment in this longer tapestry. I think probably the latter in the following sense because the case really is quite important. But I would think that a decision to strike down any part of the Affordable Care Act would be doctrinally and constitutionally and politically a disaster, a terrible move. In fact the question I think is going to be whether this court is willing to look at questions like Alito, the way Alito did in U.S. versus Jones, looking forward as Judge Kavanaugh said in his separate opinion, looking forward this tool of using a market based solution to an economic problem is something that can be used in ways that we, you know, it's not a liberal idea or a conservative idea. It's something, it's a tool that government can have at this disposal. Do we want to cut that off now without any knowledge of what the consequences of that would be because we don't think that, you know, Millard Fillmore would have proposed this bill or do we want to try to go for an immediate halt in change. And historically the court has fallen prey to this immediate halt idea far too often and the test for the Constitution is not whether the court does it, but what the response is from the country because the Constitution is resilient enough to work around these things. Sometimes it once it took a civil war, that is bad. I don't think that will happen over the time. Sometimes it takes a constitutional amendment. Sometimes it takes the New Deal crisis. But usually we go on. That doesn't mean there aren't high stakes in terms of the immediate consequences. But I don't think it in and of itself is going to tell us what the health of our Constitution is. It will tell us a lot about the Supreme Court. But historically the Supreme Court has not really ever been a particularly important part of the Constitution. That has to be done by all of us. I want to open it up to questions from the floor. There's a microphone back there. There's someone up here. A few people up here. I'm Mitzi Wertheim. I want to raise a question that I think is first and foremost at least to buy concerns which is campaign finance. And what's your view about how we fix that? Considering the Constitution, the Supreme Court, what are the options for that? Well, cancel your lunch plans, folks. But I actually will answer. Two big lies. There are two big lies in American law. One is I'm a justice of the Supreme Court and I'd like to clear things up. The other is I'm a law professor and I'll be brief. But I will be very brief. I think that we need to start moving toward a constitutional amendment, but it's not the one that people have been talking about. Because the problem with Citizens United is not the idea that corporations are people. Corporations have always been persons. And focusing on that is a red herring. What's gone wrong in our First Amendment doctrine is the idea that the First Amendment has nothing to do with self-government and equality. It's not making as much noise as you want depending on your resources. And we need to push back against that. And the drive to amend the Constitution would be very useful even if it doesn't succeed. Because constitutional amendments often do a tremendous amount of good even if they don't succeed. The court, I think, is already in the process of asking itself whether it really didn't make a mistake. And we've got the short process going on now in American Tradition versus Bullock where the court could have stepped in and just reversed. I don't know how many people are familiar with this, but the Montana Supreme Court said we have a case where a corporate group wants to spend unlimited money in our elections and Citizens United seems to say that we should let them. But the more we think about it, the more we think them boys in the East and the Supreme Court are too stupid to pour water out of a boot and we just don't go along with it.  And basically they kick the case up to the court saying if you want to gut our state campaign finance laws, you're going to have to do it because we won't do it. The court could have just stepped in and summarily reversed, which is what a lot of people expected. It did not. It stayed the judgment of the court and then invited petitions for cert to produce a lot of amicus briefing and Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer both said, you know, I think it might be time to rethink Citizens United. Why don't you bring us some briefing on that issue? It's remarkable that's happening and I don't necessarily think it means they're going to switch. But I think it means they're beginning to think about how broadly they want to take this doctrine and it is possible over time to blunt lines of precedent and for the court the court over rules itself all the time without admitting it's doing it and that could happen in Citizens United. So it's a terrible decision and needs a lot of action on a lot of fronts but I am certainly hopeful and when I think of resilience this is one of the areas that I think the Constitution has a lot of promise.  So Foster Breeze versus Sheldon Adelman Yes, exactly, exactly. You go ahead and choose some ones and two of them, Mike. Yeah, we'll blame you. Right, exactly. Hello. One of the ways that I feel kind of jaded when it comes to reforming the Constitution is just the historical event of the century following the Civil War. You had a century of Jim Crow and even with the adoption or the ratification of the 13th Amendment arguably you didn't have there was not a federal criminal statute outlying slavery until World War II and you had tremendous consequences as the one Wall Street Journal reporter Douglas Blackman illustrated in his book. So just because you had a constitutional amendment didn't mean that you had real reform. And so I guess my question for you is have you had any thoughts about the general conditions under which a constitutional amendment actually creates some true reform and when it's just almost beside the point because we don't have some other ingredients necessary to make something really happen. Well, there's a great deal of scholarly literature on this question and I want to try to tackle it very quickly through a couple of points and one of which I think sheds a lot of light on this whole question because you say we had a century of Jim Crow. Actually, that's not so. After the 14th Amendment was passed, the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments, we had a period of really almost 30 years of actual biracial politics and of racial openness in the south and it really wasn't until the period between about 1895 and 1815 that what we call segregation today was imposed on the south and the reason I make the point of that is that I think it's important to understand when you look at American constitutional rhetoric. Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1867 said in America there are always two parties the party of the past and the party of the future. But what he didn't really make clear is that both parties are always actually talking about the future so that we have now been taught that the south was segregated and it kept its segregated system and it didn't change and so forth. That's not what happened at all. What happened was that in Plessy vs. Ferguson, the Supreme Court chose between two different futures and one was what I consider to be the most thoroughgoing radical piece of social engineering in American history and that was segregation. It was brand new. People thought it up. They said I've got a great idea we'll have a system where we keep the blacks out of everything, we don't let them vote we'll have this law and this law and this law and it'll work well. It wasn't really what it existed before it was a radical change. So I think that the constitutional amendments the 13th, the 14th and 15th amendments work well as long as they're not given to the care of the court. That's why I say the Supreme Court is not the best and most faithful steward of the Constitution. That has to be us. And as long as the nation preserved some commitment to a certain level of racial decency segregation as the system evolved, the system I grew up under absolutely horrible racial dictatorship could not evolve and really what happened was that in the late 1890s the United States decided it would become an imperial power and it became intellectually impossible for people to think it's okay for us to rule the Filipinos because they're racially different but not okay for Southerners to rule black people. So it was a change and so what's written on the Constitution is not ever going to solve the problem but I think those amendments made a huge difference and continue to. And the 18th Amendment is still terribly important. Look at the Proposition 8 case if you think that it isn't. Lady up here. My name is Lee Yang. I think about a Constitution and a government is basically to do everything by and for all the people and the separation or churches but now what we are having is instead of pursuit of happiness reduce the tax burden we are high skyrocketed budget deficit and we use privatization to subsidize all the private gains so do you have anything to say about it how to curb it? Well, I don't think there's any question that politics is broken. I don't know whether to blame the Constitution for that or not. I will say this that one of the big complaints of the challengers to the Affordable Care Act is that it represents a subsidy to the insurance industry and the Constitution forbids subsidy to private business. And I read this and I was like what are you smoking? Because for better or for better or worse the main activity of Congress since 1789 has been deciding who would get the subsidies and who wouldn't. Whether it's the Pacific Railroads the arms makers, the canal people you know coming forward in our time farmers and there's no doubt in my mind that this can be done badly and often is but I think the main thing the Constitution could contribute toward dealing with this problem would be to help us fix politics by backing off the kind of not just the Citizens United limb but the whole series of decisions since Buckley versus Vallejo that basically says regulation of campaign finance has to be done only at the margins and we fundamentally have to allow a political system in which money rules. I think that's what the Constitution can contribute to the problems you're talking about. One more question Pink sweater Oh there you go Can you just talk a little bit about the right to bear arms and today's semi-automatic weapons being dragged into schools and other places? I'll do my best I used to teach in Oregon and whenever I'm speaking west of the Mississippi I would duck that question I simply say I haven't read that far I've got to the First Amendment Um I think the most to me the most plausible reading of the Second Amendment was that it was aimed at reassuring the states that Congress would not dissolve and abolish their state militias because the most radical shift in power across the board that the Constitution made from the Articles of Confederation was to transfer command regulation and training of the militia from states to the federal government whenever the government chose that was incredibly radical under the Articles the states always retained command of the militia even in time of war so I think a certain people like Patrick Henry began to say it's a plot we've all heard that it's a plot they want to they have black helicopters they're going to disarm our state militias and then rule us the motive behind the offering of what became the Second Amendment by Madison was to say no that's not what it's about you can have your militias but if there's a war we want the army under one command and Madison's great point of pride when he died was that he had fought the War of 1812 now that didn't go as well as we had hoped but we did survive it he had fought the War of 1812 with militia he had not gone to a standing army so I can't, I don't think we can ever know history well enough to say no there was no personal aspect to it but I think that the Supreme Court in Heller has gone about as far as the evidence will take it about the personal right to bear arms and it's important to realize that whatever you think of Heller it's so far a very limited decision it says you have the right to personal possession of a hand weapon in the home for purposes of self defense there is no reason why that precedent has to be expanded to say you have a right to a personal armory of tank piercing ammunition for the purposes of your local militia going down to the tax office the court certainly hasn't gone there yet and I don't see any historical evidence one of the myths in the book which is going to be available at fine bookstores and undoubtedly also through e-reader services one of the myths is that I tackle and go at very hard is the idea that's been spread in this country since the 70s that the real purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to threaten the government and there's frequently a quote from Thomas Jefferson that they cite they say where the people fear the government there is tyranny the government fears the people there is liberty and you're like whoa Jefferson he was a smart guy I can't argue with that except it's made up he didn't say it it was actually said by John Basil Barnhill undoubtedly a name that's on every tongue in 1914 in a magazine called the national ripsaw in a debate about whether the socialist party or the single tax party should be the main third party in the United States Jefferson there's no evidence that the framers wanted an armed populace that would go and fight against tax collectors the one time that happened in the early federal period was the whiskey rebellion and George Washington went bats puto when that happened he formed a national army and led it himself in the field the only president to ever lead as commander in chief a national army in the field went into Pennsylvania arrested everyone he could get his hands on dragged them to Philadelphia put them in prison and made a speech saying you know what's wrong with you people you're trying to destroy the country and then you know I'm going to get you and then you went back to you went back to Philadelphia and pardon them all but that was done very quietly because they really did not want an armed citizenry blocking government actions so I think the whole idea that that's what the Second Amendment is about it's very recent it arose in the lifetime of most of the people in this room and like a lot of these originalist constitutional doctrines it's a kind of invented past for a science fiction future and we're beginning to see the outlines of that future if you follow the Trayvon Martin case this is the kind of society that the kind of radical Second Amendment advocates foresee they don't regard this as a bad consequence at all they want more gun violence as part of our social social dealings and it's very disturbing on those fighting words we're going to end thank you very much