of being behind for all. Responsibility to others. Parenthood memory. Well, welcome to Legislative Update. I'm Renette Blabash, and you just heard the first part of this wonderful speech that our guest today gave four years ago when she ran for state chair, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. And I happen to be there.  I am biased for this show. I happen to be there and I volunteered for her first campaign for state senate in 2014, and I helped her when she ran for state party chair both times. She happened to win. I'm delighted that Martha could join us today because after four years she's stepping down to move on to other things, and I hope we can talk about that. So we're going to talk about the things you've done, whether you achieved your goals as state party chair, how it transformed you, what were your challenges, what surprised you, and we're also going to spend some time, save some time at the end, to talk about the Milwaukee 2020. This incredible news that the Democratic National Committee is going to have their convention before the presidential primary right here in Wisconsin in Milwaukee an hour away. That's huge, but it's also huge that Martha Lening from Sheboygan has been state party chair. I knew you before even that when you were the director of generations, correct? I was volunteering there and I saw how you dealt with people, so when I heard you were running for state senate I was just thrilled and you were an incredible candidate. And here you are. You have won two elections, you've led the party, now you're stepping down. So tell us about this experience. Has it been a good one? Is it what you expected, what you hoped? Absolutely.  My dad had an opportunity to climb out of poverty by getting a good quality public school education on the GI bill, allowing him to become a chemical engineer. And when I saw what was happening in Wisconsin, politics has really changed in the last 20 years. You know, it used to be that we brought people together. Money was not a big part of politics. It was just good common sense values. People of both parties coming together to talk about a problem and solve it. And instead what I saw before I became chair and before I ran for senate was, you know, we were making decisions for that were siphoning money towards, you know, the wealthiest people in our community saying that they would create this opportunity. And I just don't believe that. I believe that opportunity is created when everybody has the chance to get a good education, to start a business, to get good mentorship. And I saw that slipping away. And I really felt Scott Walker was leading it with his lack of investment in education, with making bad fiscal decisions about not fixing our roads, causing us to spend far more money later to fix them, you know, health care, just taking health care opportunity away from people. So I got involved and I'm thrilled with the changes that we've made and the progress we've made. That's terrific. What surprised you? So first, let's tell us briefly what the state party chair does. So the state party is here to build an infrastructure. And frankly, when I came in, because of all the money that is now pouring into politics, it was just difficult for our party to compete, you know, we don't typically have people who write out million dollar checks. Just this last election, you know, the Republican Party has two people that write a one million dollar check to them. Just there you go. And for us, we don't have anybody who writes us even a half a million dollar check, you know, so so it is a much more difficult process for the parties to be equal when one is so well funded and the other isn't. So what our party is here to do is to create an infrastructure to help candidates run for office, to support them in that run, getting them the training that they need to help us create an echo chamber around the state so that people know what democratic leadership offers, what that candidate will do to make their life better and to help them win. And I'm very proud of what we've done because we have built an investment infrastructure, you know, we are we are now a much better funded program. We have 11 people on the ground that are helping us all over the state organize our greatest resource, which are the activists, the people that help us share with their neighbors what our leadership does. And we have a strong team at the state office that is here to help candidates run for office. But we're still working on growing. What excites me the most is seeing the increasing number in our party of minorities and women stepping up and running for office and volunteering for leadership positions. When I ran this last time in 2018, I believe I was one of 4647 women running for state assembly offices throughout the state. That's the largest number ever, far more than the other party in terms of women running for office. We didn't all win though. A couple of us did. Yeah. So that is a good thing. And I hope that trend continues. Absolutely. And I think women are really inspired right now. I think when women are seeing the destruction that has occurred that when we don't invest in our schools, kids lose the opportunity for success. When our colleges are so expensive that kids even with scholarships, they can, they may be able to pay for the tuition, but they can't afford the room and board. So opportunity is dripping away from them, you know, when there are young men and women out there that are excited about the construction trades. And yet they're having difficulty getting the classes in because their family struggling just to make it day to day and they've got to work a job and they don't have time for that studying. There's so many challenges that our citizens are dealing with right now. And it's really important that people get involved and women take action. When they see things happening, they don't like they take action. And it was really unfortunate to see how many of our great candidates for assembly did not win. But that is simply because the the Republicans have rigged the system. I mean, Scott Walker and the other Republicans came together and they drew lines that literally prevent Democrats from winning office from taking the legislature. And it it's factual. I mean, there were 54% of the votes placed in 2018 were for Democratic candidates. Yet we only got 36% of the seats. And if you want to look at it in a different way, if you use the 2009 congressional lines, Tammy Baldwin would have won five out of the eight congressional seats. And you know she won the state with 55%. But using the congressional lines that they've drawn now, she only won three out of the eight. So literally, it's really a frustrating thing in a state where we were all raised with values of fairness and transparency that currently the Republican Party is led by a group of people who feel cheating is okay. Well, let me play the devil's advocate. Right now we're taping this a week after an election that was statewide. Now this was for a judge, and it's supposed to be a nonpartisan position. But we know that conservatives tended to back the other one, our party tended to back the one. And it was very close where we're still hoping that Lisa Neubauer will win. But that was a statewide so you cannot blame that on district boundaries. So if I were conservative, I would say, come on, aren't you just kind of whining here? No, so the issue here is is that it's not to say that elections are not, you know, that they aren't tight. I mean, Wisconsin has been a really purple state.  So that's not the issue. The issue is when you're drawing lines that literally say you can get more than half of the vote statewide, but you only barely get a third of the seats. That disparity is what we're pointing out. When you're talking about this spring election, you know, the issue here is that there were some really bad ads that were put out at the very end. Many of the information showed that Lisa Neubauer had strong support. When you have 98% of the judges in the state who endorsed all saying she is the person who's the most qualified. But unfortunately, the Republican Party did make this a very partisan race, and they came in and they said a lot of false things about Judge Neubauer, and it did inspire people out of fear to come out and vote for Brian Hagendorn. But right now, as of right now, almost a week after that election, it is too tight to call. And it is too tight to call because so many great people who were well informed about who the best person is for that race came out and voted. And now we as a Democratic Party, we just have to be sure we grow our activism so that we can share with people that, you know, Judge Neubauer has never made any comments about the immigration of Donald Trump, his reforms, and that we need to be moving forward in a way that gives facts to our voters and that we can dispel any rumors or false information that's given out there. Okay, I don't know how you can say so optimistic. You always are so upbeat. I must admit, I go through periods of cynicism, especially when I look at the lay of the land in Sheboygan County, which we know Tony Evers won well. She did such a great wide statewide, but not here, not here at all. It was very, very one-sided and it has been for a long time. And even if we redraw the boundaries, I'm not sure the 27th district will ever go progressive. So, and what you alluded to earlier about the money, I sometimes think, oh, you just can't battle that. So how do you stay optimistic? I think because you have to really separate the difference between the people who are putting out the false information and telling a story that just doesn't have facts behind it versus the people who we live with in our community. I know a lot of phenomenal Republicans, you know, and they're really good people who care about our communities and really want to have a thriving community. But we, as Democrats, have not had the resources to put our message out there. And so, as we build a stronger party and a stronger infrastructure and we can share that can make a big difference, I'll give you a perfect example. And that is, a lot of people will tell me that, you know, they're concerned about the Democrats handing out things to people who don't deserve it. We don't believe that. We want to be sure that people have a hand up. We don't believe that we should be just giving out resources to anyone who doesn't deserve it. But we also are deeply, deeply concerned about the greed of corporations. So, there was a report that came out when I ran for state Senate that one Walmart Supercenter, just one in the state of Wisconsin, when you add up all the public assistance that the working employees of that store get, it's $900,000 a year of our tax money that go to the working employees of that store. Why? Because Walmart can't take some of their $12 billion in profit and pay them a wage that they can live on. That's just wrong. Why should we as taxpayers be subsidizing Walmart? They should pay their employees a fair wage. And if they did, we would have more money in our communities for the coffee shops and the car washes and all those great things. When we get that message out to the people in our communities, people will look at Democrats in a very, very different way. And I think Tammy Baldwin did that. She had progressive principles that talked about fairness and equality and opportunity. And in a big way, she won with 55% of the vote. And how are we gonna get that message out? In this age, when media is so scattered and such a shadow of what it used to be really, when, years ago, when I was a reporter, we really covered all the campaigns at length. This year, when I was running, the local newspaper said, okay, you've got 200 words to tell us about yourself and send in a picture. And that was it. No interviews, nothing. I was just, whoa. So there's no, no information. And I know we depend on door to door and I get that. It's a lot of walking, a lot of energy, a lot of time. But it's like, I feel like I'm just scratching the side of an elephant and there's this huge elephant that, I don't know. It's a changing world.  And there's just so many places to get news from now and so many that are unreliable. And there's, it's hard to know which is true and which is not true. And people are really struggling with that. I will tell you that I believe that the way we move forward is we keep working on getting the best information we can out there. But we really need to ensure that our activists, the people in the community have the facts. Because the bottom line is, are you gonna relieve the mailer that comes in the mailer or the person on the TV or the person that you know has done good work in your community and cares about your community and has been active in making good choices for you? Their opinion will mean more to you than the flyer that comes in the mail. And that's why it's so important to us that we're building this activism around the state so that we can ensure we get out the best information. Where are you stepping down now? You know, this is a job. I tell people it's like a relay. You know, if you're in a, you know, four lap relay here and you're the first person you don't say that you'll do the second, the third and the fourth. You give it everything you got in that first lap. And I have, you know, we have dramatically grown the party. When I came on board, we had seven people. We have 24 people on board now. And this is during, there is no off year anymore. We are building every year. The capacity of our organizing team is amazing and they're doing great things empowering our grassroots. And it's now time for me to hand that baton to the next person who can work on our communications and our echo chamber and technology and bringing their talents and skills to the table. I think a good leader knows when the time is for them to hand that baton and my time is now so that I can go on and use my talents and skills in a different way and have the next person stepping up to take us to the next level. Were you the first woman chair of the state? No, I wasn't. And I'm proud to say that I wasn't because it just shows how progressive we are. That's right. Yeah, I wonder how the other part. We have two men running so far that I know of. Yes. Is there time for someone else to step in? Yeah, actually, I think there's three now that have announced interest. So, and yes, there is still time to run, but we have some really good candidates and I have no doubt that we'll be in good hands. And that will be chosen at the state party convention in June. So anybody who wants to have a say in the leadership of the party should go to that convention. You can find out at your local Democratic office. Absolutely. So what happens for Martha now? What are you going to do? Oh, I have several things that I'm looking at, really trying to take some of the work that I did here in building infrastructure and empowering us to do more with less. That's the challenge. As I said earlier, the Republican party has people who will just throw money at things. Millions of dollars easily come to them. And on our side that it isn't that easy. And so how do you ensure that every dollar that you're using is being used to its best potential and you're getting the most out of it? And we did that in 2018. We did it just an amazing job. So that still doesn't tell me what you're going to do. I'm going to be involved in politics. I'm going to be involved in some way in politics and most likely in fundraising and connecting and infrastructure building. But I haven't made a final decision yet. Yeah, the fundraising was incredible. I got to drive you while you did your phone calls and that was a very good lesson, learning for me to watch you do your work. So I want to also talk about the Democratic National Committee choosing Milwaukee out of many other cities. And we were one of the final three, I think our competitors were Houston, Miami. And ultimately the DNC led by Juan Perez, is that his name? Tom Perez. Tom Perez, chose Milwaukee. And there was a big rollout. We have some photos that we hope Scott can share during the airing of this. It's this huge. So tell us what, are we going to fill the effects here in Sheboygan? Absolutely. I mean, this is a huge event. It is, there will be tens of thousands of people that will be coming to the Milwaukee area. There will be millions of people who will be focused on what's happening there. There will be political leaders from our party at all different levels coming here to Wisconsin. So it is a great opportunity for us to highlight the Midwest, for us to highlight the working class. There's been a lot of big cities that have had a convention like this, but bringing it to Milwaukee and letting people see that, it's our big city in Wisconsin, but it's not the size of city like Houston or Miami. It's a working class community where you can drive from the North side to the South side in 20 minutes. And we were really proud of that city and it's gonna be a great opportunity for us to show it to the nation and bring a lot of people here for tourism. Yeah, it is awesome. This is in, what is it, July 2020, August? Yep, nope, it's yep. And it's in July and it's going to be, it's right during some of the best weather. Everybody's gonna be praying that we get no rain, wonderful weather. But people are going to be staying all around the area. And I know when I was in Philadelphia in 2016, my family came in and we went and visited parts of Pennsylvania. This will be a time where people will take a trip in here and why not go up and check out the golf courses up here in the Sheboygan area and the great restaurants and go on up to Minakwa and see what the North of Woods is like and there's Madison, go to the concert on the square or check out the farmers market. There's going to be a lot of traveling that goes on which will bring great economic opportunities for Wisconsin and there also will be an opportunity to just show what Midwestern living is like, to present that to the rest of the nation because some people have never been in the Midwest and so it's a great opportunity to show that. I know that's shocking is it? Some people come here to Wisconsin and they're like, wow, there's like not very many buildings. I'm like, it's farmland, but I'll take you to Milwaukee. There's a lot of buildings. So it is shocking and I've traveled to places that I've never been before and been surprised going, oh my gosh. So this is our opportunity to show people the Midwest and just how beautiful it is and show how our democratic values and principles are right here in Wisconsin. And what impact will that have on the presidential election? We lost. Well, Wisconsin did not vote for, did not contribute to the 2016 presidential candidate winning and that was a blow. Absolutely. I will tell you that I fully believe that Wisconsin would have been a blue state had we as Democrats talked more about what we were going to offer, what we would do to make people's lives better. People did not know that Hillary Clinton made a commitment to invest so much in infrastructure more than any president since FDR, it would have created 60,000 jobs right here in Wisconsin. It's those kinds of bites, sound bites that never got to the voter. So having the national convention here, clearly if we have the national convention here, people are going to be hearing what democratic leadership will offer them, which is exciting, but it will also give us an opportunity to correct that wrong and be sure that never again will we be not sharing what our leadership offers. In 2018, we did a great job at talking about education and roads and healthcare and it made the difference and we swept all of our constitutional statewide races first time any parties done that since 1982. We plan to do it again in 2020. Don't you think we would have helped if Hillary had bothered to visit the state after the primary or if Bernie had won the nomination? Because a lot of, you know, when he came, he packed South High School, you and I were both there. I just watched that speech again because it was like five, four years since then and I was struck by all these Sheboygan people cheering so loudly for Bernie. I think it's just really important that whatever political leader comes, they have to show up. They have to be there. They have to tell people what they're gonna do to make their lives better. We can't just be against something. We have to be for something. We have to show that our leadership will make a difference in those people's lives. And I think that's the part. If you ask me what I'll leave here with, it's the memories of the people I met with. The mother who was worried about how her child will survive because they had a medical condition and were worried about pre-existing conditions being eliminated and how that would affect her life. Or the senior who had worked their whole life and now has non-potable water in their house, which they had invested their retirement in. That house was their savings. And now how do you sell a house that has non-potable water because our government has decided to remove protections that ensured that we weren't polluting our water. What about chronic wasting disease? People all over our state rely on venison to put food in their freezers and now chronic wasting disease because we were ignoring deer farms. And there's just, you hear these stories and you feel like people have really let down the people of Wisconsin too much. And it's time for politicians to show up and address these issues. We haven't even talked about our new governor. And I guess I would consider that one of your achievements, you helped elect him. So we have this governor who is talking about all those things and does want to address public education, the environment, climate change, women's health, all health. But we still have this Republican majority in the legislature that tried very hard to limit his powers. And we will see how that plays out in court.  Because Tony Evers has the values that are Wisconsin values. He is not playing partisan politics. He is sitting down and talking to people about what are we going to do to make Wisconsinites lives better. And the things that he's bringing to the table are good things. And the Republicans, if they refuse, if they continue to, this lame duck, trying to strip a man of the power that the voters gave him, those are things Wisconsinites don't wanna see. And I believe in Tony Evers, he has great values and he's going to be one of the best governors we've had. And he's not running for president. He's the voter to Wisconsin, which is great. Well, Martha Lanning, thank you so much for joining this. It's gone too fast. There's so much more I wish I could ask you. If people want to get involved in Milwaukee 2020, there is a website, I believe, they're still looking for staff, still looking for volunteers, still looking for vendors. If you wanna provide services, rooms, or food or whatever for that whole week-long convention, that's gonna be really exciting. What else can you tell people about if they wanna get involved in the Democratic Party? What can they do? So Milwaukee2020.com is where you can sign up to volunteer or if you're interested in getting involved in some way.  You can find out about your local county party and get involved because our Democratic Party is as strong as we are. We need more good Democrats to come in and help us make it stronger. All right, thank you, Martha. Thank you, viewers, for watching. Whatever you do, get involved. Don't be complacent about politics. We're talking about your future. This is Nanette Boulevage. Thanks for joining us.


This study uses satellite imagery to estimate paddy rice areas and simulate spatiotemporal variations in rice yield in northeastern Asia, with a root mean square error of 0.6740 H1 and a coefficient of determination of 0.823. The results suggest that a well-calibrated remote sensing integrated crop model can facilitate the development of novel approaches for monitoring and managing crop productivity over classified paddy areas, enhancing agricultural decision support systems. This article was authored by Jong Minit Yeom, Siontuk Jong, Ravanesh Sideo, and others.


In today's makeup tutorial, I'm going to show you how simple it is to apply more eyeshadows to a makeup look. So in my previous video, I showed you how to create this look using just two eyeshadows, and I noticed that two eyeshadow tutorials are very popular on my channel, and I think it's because they're very quick and easy and simple, but I wanted to show the difference between applying two and applying five and how easy you can actually achieve these different looks. I feel like you can't really tell the difference between two and five, and that proves, I believe, two things. A, two eyeshadows are totally enough, and B, if you can master two, you can definitely handle five. And this is actually how I started in the makeup world. I would perfect a very, very basic look and then very slowly start to add other elements. So I wanted to show you that today.  Start off with something that you can perfect and then just add a little bit extra. So with all that said, let's get started. So as always, we're going to start by applying an eyeshadow primer all over the lid, and I've actually started applying my eyeshadow primer using a damp sponge. I find that this creates a really even finish and also is so soothing because of the dampness of the sponge. It's just really soothing on the eyes, but I love the finish that it gives. It's way more even than applying it with my fingertips, which means we're going to have a longer lasting, better finish, and the eyeshadows are going to have something to hold onto while also creating a blank canvas as well. Now the two eyeshadows that we're going to be using is from this Fenty Beauty palette. This is the palette number three. We're going to use the top brown shade and the bottom brown shade, and I'm going to apply the first shade using a blending brush. Now I like to hold the blending brush a little higher up on the handle when we're applying. So the further you hold it up on the handle, the more pressure you're going to apply, the more eyeshadow you're going to apply. If you hold it in the middle, you're going to blend as you apply, and if you hold it right at the bottom, you're only going to blend. That's just something to bear in mind. So I'm going to take my blending brush and I'm holding it in the center because my lid is still a little damp. So I don't want to apply too much pressure because it's just going to grab hold of certain areas, so it's better to hold it in the center, pick up a little bit of product, and then very slowly start to build this up on the lid. So I'm going to start on the lower part of the lid, and I'm going to build this up as we go because we want to grab hold of the shadows to keep it on the lid, but we don't want to create little patches on the lid either. So very slowly build this up, apply it nice and low, and work your way up covering the lid. Don't worry about the crease just yet, just cover the lid. Now as you can see, I'm holding the brush kind of low down in front of me, and this allows the bristles to kind of go up a little bit higher, so it's covering the lid and also a little bit into the crease as well. Now if you only want to work on the crease, you're going to bring it up horizontally, so working across the eye instead, and this will only cover this area and prevent your eyeshadows from going up too high, but keeping it nice and deep in that crease. So I use a combination of keeping it low and then keeping it high depending on the areas that I need to cover. Another little tip and something that I've never actually mentioned is I always keep my eyebrow kind of raised, because if I kind of squint or have my eyes kind of relaxed, I get these little wrinkles. So try keeping your eyebrow nice and high and look down in a mirror, and this will create a smooth line first to work on, so I always have a mirror kind of placed in front of me, and this just creates this smoothness. It's going to make sure we have a nice even texture and an even look, so that's just something to try. I've never mentioned it before, but it's something I always do. So once I've covered the entire lid area, I want to then kind of work in the crease area now, and I'm going to do little swirling motions, and this is going to blend in that crease line and keep it nice and deep in there, but give us this kind of soft, kind of halo around the lid, so I'm keeping my hand high and doing little swirls. Now I could never do a smokey eye without using a clean blending brush to soften around the edges. This honestly makes such a difference. I'm holding it really far down on the handle, because I don't want to apply anything or blend too much. I want a soft, gentle blend, so holding it really far down the handle will just let it glide over the skin, so it's going to be nice and soft and blurry and just that perfect smokey look, because smokiness is the deep darkness right at the base, and then it kind of disappears into nothing, and that's what we want, and that's what a clean blending brush does. And then you should end up with something that looks like this. Now moving on to our darker shade, I'm going to apply this using a small flat brush. Now you can come from above and kind of tap it across the lash line, or you can bring it down and tap it across the lash line. It's totally up to you and whichever one works for you. I'm also holding it quite high up on the handle to give me lots of control, because I don't want this to kind of go everywhere. You know, we don't want fallout, so keep it kind of high, gives you lots of control, and you can really press that dark eyeshadow onto the lash line. Now as you can see, I'm keeping the brush kind of vertically across my skin, so it's kind of pressing it against my skin, right across the lash line, and I keep it a little higher on the outer edge, and then I kind of sweep it downwards the closer it gets to the inner corner, but it's all about this pressing motion and keeping it vertically. I'm also going to do little smudging motions with this as well, so I can kind of use the brush back and forth in kind of a little wiggle across the lash line, and that's going to apply the eyeshadow just a little bit higher and make sure it's nice and smudged. Then I'm going to switch my technique, bring my hand nice and high, and this time we're working across horizontally. So I'm pressing this all along and we're going to get a really nice deep effect as we do this. So I switch between the two using horizontal kind of pressing motions, vertically pressing motions until I get the depth that I want. We're just going to go in with some mascara and some falsies. Now a lot of people are asking me how I apply my lashes, so I'm going to show you, this is what I like to do. I apply the glue on the upper part, so it's not on the lash band, it's not underneath, it's on the upper part, and I look down in a mirror and I'm going to press them upwards. So the first thing that I like to do is to kind of kiss my lashes, so I kind of go onto the lashes, this kind of disperses the glue and make sure it's not really close to my eyes either because we don't want to get glue in our eyes. And yes, you are gluing the fake lashes to your own lashes, so you do have to be careful after you've removed them to take care of your lashes. But what I do is I do this and then as you can see, it just rips all of it. I let go and then I just stamp all the way across until the glue dries. And then this way I get to keep my own natural lash line and I can make sure that the lashes are really on there and I don't have any like little gaps or movement or anything like that. But you do have to take care of your lashes if you do this technique and I'm also not recommending it and please make sure you don't get glue in your eyes. Also just want to clarify, this is not stuck to the upper rim of my eye, it's stuck to the roots of my lashes, not on the waterline. Don't stick these to your waterline, it's going to be very uncomfortable and it can actually really affect your eyes. I also didn't apply any mascara yet on the lower part because if my eyes get a little watery I don't want to have like, you know, smudge city going on. So once my upper lashes are on I can then apply a little bit of mascara to the lower lashes. So now that we have our two eyeshadows on the eyes, we are going to add some more. So I'm actually going to start off with this beautiful burnt orange matte shade. You don't have to use orange, you could use a mauve or a yellow or a blush tone, whatever kind of blush or lipstick that you're using, you could always incorporate that as well. And I'm going to apply this using a blending brush just in the center of the lid. So if you kind of cut your lid horizontally almost, we're going in the middle, right in the middle and we're working our whole way across the lid. Keeping this mostly to the lid and then very slowly blending it upwards into the crease so it eventually fades into nothing. Try to avoid the darker area right at the lash line. We still want to keep a little bit of that depth there. So try to keep it a little bit higher than that to add a soft blend. And as always, I'm going to take my clean blending brush because you can't do a smoky eye without a clean blending brush. And I'm just going to very, very lightly soften out any harsh edges again, holding the handle quite low down so I get a soft, gentle blend. Next, we're going to take this deep plum shade and apply this over our smoky line right at the lash line. And one thing that I absolutely love about deep plums is that they work with most eye colors. They will add just the most subtlest difference to this smoky eye. Like you won't notice it, but your eyes are going to shine just that little bit more. So layering a little bit of this plum over that deep color is definitely going to add a little bit more depth and bring out the eyes. Absolutely love, love the shade. Highly recommend having a shade like this in your makeup bag. And then you should end up with something that looks like this. And as you can see with the before and after, so we have the two eye shadows and then the four eye shadows, we just have a little bit more lift because we've blended and brought that eye shadow outwards. We have a little bit more depth of the lash line, but mostly we have this overall smokier, deeper appearance bringing the eyes upwards, which I absolutely love. Now for underneath the eye, I'm going to take the plum shade. I'm going to apply this on the outer edge and then swinging upwards to the inner corner. Now I actually don't suit applying too much eye shadow under my eye. For some people, it looks absolutely amazing, which is why I'm showing it, but for me, not so much. And then I'm going to take that burnt orange shade using a blending brush to sweep around the edges. Again, I'm going to hold it really far off in the handle like we talked about earlier. The higher you hold on the handle, the more control, the more precision you're going to have. So I'm going to hold it really far up on the handle and then we're going to sweep this around the edges of the plum to add a little bit more depth. And then on the waterline, I'm going to apply a nudie shade that's just going to open my eyes a little bit more. I actually wish I'd gone for something with a little bit more of a bronzy metallic finish. I feel like that would have worked so much better than applying this nude shade. So that's just something to bear in mind. And then you should end up with something that looks like this. So so far we have our four eyeshadows on there and we also have that nude shade on the waterline and you can see the difference between no eye makeup and four eyeshadows. That's quite a difference right there. And then to finish it off, what do I always love doing? Applying a little bit of metallic. I love metallic shades.  Oh my goodness, is it going to completely change your look? Honestly, it's going to take it to the next level because what do metallics do? Metallics cover up any mistakes. So if your blending hasn't been great, if your fading hasn't been great, metallics are going to hide it all. Applying this in the center of the lid over the top of everything that we've applied and just kind of catching that light right in the center. And then that is the finished look. I really hope that you guys enjoyed this one. Please give it a try. I promise you, if you can master two, you can apply a million eyeshadows. So start off with the two, perfect it, finish it off with lashes and mascara and everything, and then just add a little bit more. It kind of takes the fear out of it because you know that your look is pretty much finished.  If you enjoyed this video, please give it a thumbs up. I'd really appreciate it. As always, my friends, be kind to yourself, be kind to others, and I will see you in the next one.


మోవ్ధాసి వునికిందపత్ని మొనిముఉదికిత్సికాణరంటరుప్సట్నిమిరురునిందిసినికాట్కానికికికిత్నిమాసినిలలలలసాలాపూమక్కకి. ʻōʻaiʻi ʻèʻi ʻōʻai ʻōʻai ʻan ʻʻa ʻan ʴʻi ʻa ʻa ʻak ʻi ʻa ʻa ʿa ʻa ʰa ʨʳe ʱi  ʱee ʯa ʳe ʸa ʰa ʸe ʰe ʸe ʱe ʱe ʱe ʸa ʱe ʰe ʸe ʸe ʱe ʱe ʱe ʱe ʸe ʸe ʱe ʸe ʸe ʱe ʸe ʸe ʱe ʸe ʱe  It's not forgiving, it's not forgiving and forgetting. In Muayyama Tafwadi and my vice chairman there for Kambuidi, it doesn't mean Shaka Futsua, the MP for Mandevu Chirando, the mayor for Lusaka are supporting Kambuidi. It is not the stance, they have got their democratic rights to support whoever they want. And if my provincial secretary Muayyama Tafwadi is seeing on the picture with Shimbaka Kambuidi, it doesn't mean that he's got my breakings and they are not calling supporting Shimbaka Kambuidi. No, that is his democratic rights. It doesn't mean that Chirando, the mayor of Lusaka, is supporting Shimbaka Kambuidi. No, we are there and opening our ears and our eyes to see whoever comes out in the open that he wants to read the party. And we are going to listen to their manifesto. Let them sell themselves to the general membership of the party. And the Zambia is a clutch. The Zambia is going to advise the delegates that won't go to the floor. That's why it happens to his ex-president Ed Gatagolong. It is the people of Zambia who advise the party leadership that you come out of Kambuidi, we are not available, don't make a mistake. And to resolve the party, what is the problem now? And they know here that the leadership of the party now is going to come from the members of the parliament. But where is it coming from? We are being guided by the constitution. The answer is no, I'm far, I'm not in Lusaka. I'm not in Lusaka and this is where I'm giving this interview on the phone. So if they come up with a good reason of resolving the Lusaka province, not that the province is not the president Ed Gatagolong. How? Now, if one individual has uttered the delegative statement against the president's rule, just in that person, not the entire 24 leadership, we may recommend the charity room part to stand as our MP in the Narkos duos. We are giving honourable, not great monarchy. We recommend the Christmas to stand in Munari. We are giving some of it. We recommend the religious mongarad duos standing in Kanyama. We are giving an answer but in free way, if the province itself is actually honourable and gruel, she cannot win at an election in Munari. Honestly speaking, how can she win an election for the party at the national level as the running match? How? Because as the province will recommend it to that of our bank and gruel, it is about to win in Shama elections in Munari to pay rainy Christmas more. And she was appointed as the running match. Honestly speaking, can she make us win an election as the running match? The answer is no. And this is the reason they have given is that we lost elections as the province. What has happened to Kandu? Who is still in the 10th committee? Did she make the party to win an election as the running match? For her to continue to sit in the 10th committee? Honestly speaking, how can she win an election instead of just giving that pass words from the province as stock? Honestly speaking, how can she win an election? Honestly speaking, how can she win an election in Munari? in the twenty eleven presidential election. So allow, let them allow all the candidates to come out in the open and campaign freely. That's what democracy demands, but if they are going to manage democracy, then there will be no need of staying in the party because we stayed in the party because of love and unity, but if there is no love and unity in the party, there is no need of staying in the place. So Naib, what's the way forward for your committee? What is the way forward for your committee? What is the way forward? I'm not yet in the country, I'm outside the country, and I'll come and consult my colleagues.


So the first thing I want to do, which I think is well always important in the debate or in a presentation generally, is to find terms. I think it's important to define your terms. Because one of the things I find when I debate people on socialists or the various categories of socialists is that they never define capitalism. And what they use is what they do is they assume the world as it is today is capitalist and therefore all the ills of the world today are blamed on capitalism.  They're so poor that their net worth is negative. So indeed I'm probably richer than like a billion of them. Just me alone and I'm not a billionaire. Just me alone because they have negative net worth and you add negative numbers. What do you get? A big negative number. So it's easy to be richer than a lot of negatives. But are they living under capitalism? Is the real question we should ask ourselves and clearly they're not. Like people in Africa are not living in capitalism. People in Asia are not living in capitalism. Indeed I would argue and will argue vehemently today that we in America don't live under capitalism and there is no country in the world today that is a capitalist country. Capitalism does not exist in the world today. What we have is lots of countries that are mixed. A mixture of socialism and capitalism, socialism being statism, the state involvement, heavy state involvement, heavy state redistribution of wealth and some property rights that are regulated controlled by the state are not true property rights because I can't actually do what I want with my property. I have to get permission for almost everything that I do with my property. I used to live in California, that was the case. You need to get a permit to chop down a tree. You need to get a permit to redo your house. You need to get a permit for everything. That is socialism or statism, some form of statism. It certainly is not capitalism. So what is capitalism? So the definition of capitalism is a system of real free markets where the state does not intervene in the economy, does not intervene at all. That is capitalism is a system in which there is a separation of state from economics in which the state does not intervene in economics at all. So I agree, cronyism is bad. Having a lot of money, therefore gaining political power is bad and indeed the only way to prevent that and still be a little free, still be free at all is by restricting the ability of the politician to have any influence on the economy and therefore there's never any reason to lobby the politician because he has no influence on the economy. He has no way of gaining favors or penalizing the competition because that is banned. So capitalism is a system in which economy and politics are separated in which all property is private property in which the state does one thing and one thing only. And that's protect individual rights. Protect individual rights in a way somebody like John Locke would have conceived of individual rights. That is the freedoms, freedom from coercion, the freedom to do, act, produce, live by your own judgment based on your own ideals. And the only job of government is to protect you, make it possible for you to do that and protect you from whom or from other people because when we live in a society there are going to be some people who crooks, frauds, criminals, bad guys. And since we don't want to live inside, at least I don't, there might be some anarchists in the room, but hopefully not. Since I don't want to be carrying all the time to, you know, watch myself, we institute a government, an institution whose sole responsibility it is. It's to defend each one of our lives, to defend our property because property is essential for life and to protect our ability to pursue our own happiness but basically to leave us free as individuals to pursue the values that we believe are necessary for our own survival that we believe are necessary for our own life to leave us alone, right? So capitalism is the system where individuals pursue their individual values, their individual happiness, free of coercion and the job of the government is to make sure that they are free. That's it. That's what capitalism is. I don't see it in America. I don't see it anywhere, indeed, in the world. To some extent, I would argue it's never existed. To the same extent, I think the socialist would argue that socialism is never existed in his kind of form. I don't think capitalism has ever existed. I think, but I do, we'll say this. So let me complete the moral argument and then I'll get to the practical argument. Now, why is this good? Why is this system right? Why is this system just from a moral perspective? Well, what is moral? What is good, evil? What is right versus wrong? Well, the standard for me for determining whether something is moral is is it consistent with human survival? Is it consistent with human flourishing? Is it good for human life? That which is good for human life? That which furthers human life is the good?  That to me is good and evil. That's right and wrong. That's the essence of morality. And it's an individualistic morality. Because what is human life?  There is no class here. There is no group here. We impose those ideas on people. But as human beings, we're just us. We're just individuals. And as an individual, the values that are good for you, the values that long-term lead to human success and human flourishing are the good and the things that lead to human failure are the bad. Now, what is the most important thing if you believe in human flourishing, in human success, in human progress? What is the most important value for human beings? For individual human beings? What is it that makes possible success and flourishing as a human being? Well, you know, we don't have time to go into all of it, but please ask about this. It's our human capacity to reason. It's our capacity to think. It's our capacity to know the truth. It's our capacity to integrate the data from reality to capacity to shape reality in order to fit our needs.  We're weak, we're slow, we have no fangs, we have no claws. You're not going to survive out there in nature without a capacity to reason, to think, to strategize, to invent, to innovate, to produce. What makes us different than any other animal is we're not programmed to survive. You actually have to figure out how to survive. So the most important thing about being human is our capacity to think. Now, thinking requires freedom. It requires the ability to try stuff out, to fail, to experiment, to do a variety of different things. Knowledge is not just embedded in our minds. We don't know what's right, what will work, what will succeed. We need to go out there and live and choose and make decisions. And again, fail sometimes and get back on our feet. The most important thing for human intelligence, for human mind, for human beings to flourish is their ability to think freely and to act based on those thoughts within freedom. Free of coercion, force, authority. Okay, I didn't see the signal. Force, authority are the real enemies of the human mind. They are what limit our ability to produce, create and really live out there. So you want a system that protects our ability to think and act on our thoughts. That's capitalism. It's a system that eliminates the one enemy of thought, which is violence, fraud, people using guns, people using authority to dictate how you should live and how you should think and what you should do. Think Galileo. Now I'll just end with this. It turns out that when you leave people free, when you let people think, when you take away the authorities, when you take away state control and limitations, to the extent that you do that, and I said there's no ideal capitalist country yet, but there have been attempts to get there, to the extent that you do it, to the extent that you practice this freedom, to that extent you produce economic wealth, you produce economic success, you get rid of poverty, to that extent that you practice capitalism, you are successful in bringing about rising standard of living, rising quality life, longer life expectancy. In every dimension you improve human life, and to the extent that you do the opposite, to the extent that you use coercion, that you use force, you use authority to suppress human freedom, primarily the freedom to think and to act on that thought, to that extent you become poor, to that extent you suffer, to that extent life becomes miserable. That's the difference between capitalism and socialism. The one is a system based on individual freedom, the other is based on individual suppression and incursion, and the consequences are obvious. One leads to wealth, one leads to disastrous poverty. Thank you. So in terms of definitions, I agree they're important. I'm surprised by Iran's definition, because as he says, by his definition there are no capitalist countries on earth, so just notice what an extreme position he's defending. I take it you're defending an economy with no state involvement whatsoever. So that's setting the bar high for you, which I know you know, but I want to make sure they know. So okay, that's point number one. That's a pretty extreme situation. Well, why? Well, think about all of the things that government does, not in spooky Venezuela, but in USA, baby, all the stuff that the government does right here to promote, I'll use your concept here, freedom, which as a liberal egalitarian, I hold dear to my heart as well, freedom. I think people who defend the sorts of positions you're defending misunderstand freedom. So there's formal freedom, which is freedom from interference, very important. There's also effective freedom, the freedom to actually accomplish things in the world. Both are important. Government, it's true, can be a source of interference. It can prevent you from dumping that coal ash in the river that you just really want to dump. You know, you just, to live your best life, you want to dump that coal ash and the pesky government won't let you do it. Admittedly, it's a restriction on freedom, formal freedom. But it also yields freedom dividends, obviously. So when we impose restrictions on pollution, we augment the effective freedom to say develop in a healthy way without coal ash in your water. Without government, we would have much less effective freedom. I would point out that all, different point now, doesn't fetishize private property or any kind of property from the standpoint of freedom, even formal freedom. All property rights are restrictions on freedom. This is my pen. He can't have it, okay? This limits what he can do. If he comes and tries to take my pen, which I hope he won't, because he's bigger than me, the police will come and, well, they probably won't, but I could theoretically call the police and get them to interfere, right? That's right, that's right. But the point is simple. There's no simple mapping from property rights to freedom, even formal freedom, because all property rights represent interferences with people.  They ain't free at all. They aren't free. They don't have formal freedom. If they try to sleep someplace, what's going to happen? The police will evict them. So even from the standpoint of formal freedom, a sort of libertarian capitalism with no safety net at all would be a disaster. But finally, in defining what, in making the moral case for capitalism, you mentioned that that which furthers human life and flourishing are good. Well, I agree. That's a good definition of good. That which promotes flourishing is good. Well, I just am wondering how taxing, say, Bill Gates, so that he can't buy a seventh yacht in order to fund, say, vaccines for kids or public education or any of the valuable public purposes that our government serves. How is taxing Bill Gates for that purpose not furthering human life and human flourishing? I submit that even by your own standard, you shouldn't embrace this kind of radical libertarian capitalism. The government does many good things. May I stop there? Thank you. That's all right. Yeah, okay. Just the ash in the river. Let me just comment on that quickly. I'm sure there'll be environmentalist questions afterwards we can cover. But look, if the river's mine, you ain't dumping your ash in my river. And my definition of capitalism in the river is owned by somebody. They're not just out there aimlessly owned by nobody. So you can dump your coal in my backyard. You can dump your coal in my river. So the solution to externalities, what we call externalities in economics, is to privatize. Once you privatize externalities, most part go away. I'm sure there'll be more questions on this. Let me make, I want to make one crucial point. By the way, I embrace the idea that I'm, what did you call it, extreme? Absolutely, I'm radical. I don't like the word extremism. I don't think it means anything. I'm radical. You know, I believe in this all the way, right, in its purest form. Wealth is created. Wealth doesn't appear. There is no pie that we then get to divide up among people. Somebody has to create the pie.  You can't then just take, and this is the definition of private property, the pie you created is yours, because you created it. Because you build it, and you do build it. You made it. You bought it. It is yours. Indeed, private property is not a rejection of freedom. It is a necessary aspect of freedom. There is no freedom without private property, because to live, I need property. Whether I need property in order to grow vegetables, I can eat them, or whether I need property in order to build the machine that I'm going to sell and make a lot of money, or the factory that makes the iPhones, or whatever the property is, you cannot have life.   Really, really, really bad. So, freedom necessitates private property. You cannot have one another. But let me go back to the pie. So, the pie is not a social pie. It's not we created this pie now. We get to decide how to divvy this pie up. No, I created a pie. Keep your hands off my pie. That's capitalism. I want to give out some of the pieces of the pie to some of you. I want to trade my pie for your pie? Fine, as long as it's voluntary. As long as I don't steal your pie, as long as I don't take your pie by force, you can do with your pie anything you want to do, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of other people. As long as it's not using force against others, you have a right to do with your pie what you want to do. Pies are not social, and they're not static. That's the other thing, right? From 300,000 years ago, the beginning of Homo sapiens, you know, I'm willing to accept that that might be the wrong date, but somewhere a long, long time ago, when Homo sapiens began, until about 250 years ago, everybody on this planet was dirt poor. It was under $3 a day or less. Everybody on the planet was like, that few aristocrats over here who by our standards were still dirt poor. They didn't have electricity. They didn't have running water. And then something miraculous happened. We got a little bit of freedom. Not the full freedom I would like, but just a little bit, about as much as, you know, we've had. And what happened? Wealth creation took off. Took off. So then now we can say, you know, there were only 3.5 billion people who were poor. Actually, the number's a lot less. According to the UN, extreme poverty is at the lowest that's ever been in human history. It's down to 8% of the population. Why? Because a few countries in Asia have adopted a little bit of capitalism. Imagine if they've adopted a lot of capitalism. There'd be no extremely poor people on planet Earth. So the only system that has ever brought people out of poverty, the only system that has ever brought people out of poverty is capitalism. And it's done such a spectacular job of doing it that it is striking that every place on the planet that has adopted a little bit of capitalism has shrinking extreme poverty and every place on the planet that has not adopted capitalism is still extremely poor. Africa is the last continent to struggle with adopting capitalism. Rwanda, Botswana, Namibia are starting to do that. Their GDP is going like this. They've adopted property rights. They've adopted some of the elements of what capitalism looks like. And suddenly, they're getting less poor. So if you care about poverty, which I think any human being cares about seeing able people who are poor stay poor, then capitalism is the only solution to solving the problem of poverty that still exists in the world. Thank you. 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, whims 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.


And so there are so many common behaviors which are self-destructive and self-defeating and we just don't get it. We don't realize that these behaviors are undermining life itself.  And so many of these behaviors are day-to-day pedestrian, you know, conduct that we come across among friends and neighbors and family and colleagues and we don't dedicate a second thought. We don't stop to say, what is this guy or girl doing? I mean, they are destroying themselves in the long run. And yet we are so accustomed to nihilism, to self-negation, to self-loathing and self-hatred, to self-criticism. We've become so accustomed to this that we regard this as the new normal. We go to therapy because everything and everyone around us is imbued with negative psychology. And we need a kind of countervailing voice to balance us, to give us insight, to tell us that there are positive things worth living for because we are not sure. We are no longer sure that life is worth it. It may well be the first age in human history, starting perhaps with the existentialists in the 1940s, that we are doubting the very value of the proposition of life itself. Is it worth living? And so in many ways, directly and indirectly, underhanded and overt, we sabotage ourselves, we defeat ourselves and we destroy our lives. Constricted life, people who avoid things, avoid certain behaviors, avoid new experiences, anything from new food to a new club that just opened. People who are very rigid when it comes to what they will do and what they will not do. They know well in advance the trajectory of their lives. And it is a very limited tunnel vision of life itself because life is about diversity and unpredictability and a bit of risk. And we have to embrace loss and hurt and pain and risk and danger because these are the engines, the engines of growth and personal development and self-enrichment in terms of rich life. And this is the spice. That gives us reason to get up in the morning, raison d'etre, the reason for being. And yet the vast majority of people live within the confines of their comfort zones in a pod or a cocoon doing the same things in well-established ruts and routines, terrified of looking left and right, trying to remain conformist and centered, trying to follow the herd, never engaging in critical independent thinking, never in effect agintic or autonomous. And consequently, these people are not self-efficacious. The constriction of life, the narrowing of life, is the narrowing of oneself to the point of vanishing. And so life constriction is an example of possibly the most extreme self-destructive process. And it leads inexorably to depression and anxiety because it involves self-betrayal. You're betraying your potential for self-actualization for who you could be. Another form of self-destructiveness is love addiction. Falling in love or having sex for all the wrong reasons to regulate your sense of self-esteem, to validate yourself, to feel good, to rely crucially on the gaze of others, on the touch of others, to become totally dependent on your environment for your own core identity and self-definition. Loving people for all the wrong reasons via processes of crushes, infatuation and limerence. This is a form of self-destructiveness. It's very easy to prove this because the majority of people, after engaging, for example, in casual sex or getting constantly infatuated with people, majority feel shame, regret and guilt. These are egotistonic emotions. They are warning signs that we're doing something wrong. And we are. Love, love is the reification of life itself. Freud said it, he called it libido, the force of life. Eros is a part of libido. Love is all there is in effect. But loving people for the wrong reasons is the opposite of love. It's a form of disappearing or vanishing, merger, fusion with other people, symbiotic relationships with other people, regulating your internal environment via other people, regulating your moods, your emotions, relying on other people for your own well-being and happiness. That's not love. That's not love. That's addiction. And addictions, by definition, taken to extreme are destructive, of course, self-destructive.  Loving someone 100%, that's a form of perfectionism. And you're setting your partner up for failure, because no one can reciprocate. No one can love 100%. Doing anything to perfection, perfect is the enemy of good, best is the enemy of good. Perfectionism is about self-defeat. You are procrastinating. When you are a perfectionist, you tend to procrastinate because of performance anxiety. You don't dare to try to measure up to your own standards because they are unattainable.  It paralyzes you. Then there is self-denial, things you love to do, issues you would like to tackle, studies you would like to engage in, sex you would like to have, drinks, I don't know what, things that make your life better, happier, more energized, things that rejuvenate you, that charge you, that move you forward. Denying yourself these things, self-denial, extreme form of asceticism, which actually borders on self-negation, on not being, on rendering yourself an absence, because any finite entity, human beings included, wants things. To want means that there is something outside you that you need and wish to have. That's why God cannot want. He includes everything. He cannot have a will. But human beings have a will and to deny your will is to weaken yourself, to weaken yourself to the point of death, of dying, mentally, if not physically. Denying yourself food is an eating disorder. Denying yourself sex, not because you don't like sex or you're in a section, but because it's a way to punish yourself. Any form of self-punishment via self-denial is self-destructiveness.  You can never satisfy these internal voices. They never let you go. They always criticize you and put you down. And so you would rather not be. And this is, of course, a great description of depression. Depression is the ultimate form of self-annihilation, of self-negation, of self-destruction, of self-defeat. Depression is about giving up, giving up on the future, giving up by remaining stuck in an sempitonal present, a present that has no bounds and leads nowhere. Depression is about inertia. It's about objectifying yourself, becoming an object. Depressed people are paralyzed in more than one sense. Even if they are hyperactive and many depressed people are actually very active, they're not there. They're not present in their own lives.  Many people react to depression and anxiety by numbing themselves. Emotional numbing reduced effect display. That's not a solution.  That's hardly a solution. Not being there is suicide. It's death by another name. Numbing is mental death. Numbing is placing yourself in a coffin irrevocably and irretrievably, never being able to exit.  Numbing is closely associated with dissociation, association, amnesia, depersonalization, derealization. There is no defensive process more destructive than dissociation. Dissociation is slicing off pieces of memory, thereby ruining your ability to form an identity and to feel yourself, to feel the eye.  You're no longer there in any sense. And all these processes, of course, involve objectification, self-objectification.  Or they undermine their accomplishments, their careers, their relationships, because they are not there subjectively. They are there as inert bodies, but nothing much more. Self-destructiveness and self-defeat are a form of masochism. Masochism is not about self-hatred necessarily. A lot of the masochistic impulse is actually grandiose. It's a victim stance. It's martyrdom. I am being tortured, discriminated against, mistreated because I'm superior morally or otherwise. It leads to passive aggression, for example, in covert narcissism. Masochism is a choice. It's a way of viewing others and the world. It's handing over control to the outside and external locus of control. And it goes hand in hand with alloplastic defenses. There was nothing I could do. I couldn't help it. People are vicious and envious. The world is decrepit and corrupt. I am its victim. But to uphold your grandiose masochism, you need to truly become a victim. You need to victimize yourself. You need to self-victimize. Retraumatize yourself. You need to destroy yourself via endless repetition compulsions. You keep repeating the same behaviors, doing the same things, hoping for different outcomes in theory, but in reality praying for identical outcomes. Because when that's what you know best, disintegration, falling apart, ruining yourself had become a vocation, had become your gifted amateur at failing and at failure and defeat. It comes a point where you're proud of your failures and defeats.  All these people have insecure attachment. They cannot bond with other people safely. They don't feel safe. And they don't feel safe because they have an internalized enemy. They have a bad interject. How can they feel safe and secure? When they can't rig themselves of a Trojan horse or a fifth column out to exterminate and eliminate them vehemently and with full conviction. How can they cope with other people when they can't cope even with themselves, when they have no self-love, when they're hell-bent on living nothing behind except a wasteland. I mean, this is a scorched earth policy. Of course, these people cannot get securely attached to anyone. They never feel secure and they never get attached because they anticipate. Doomsday, they catastrophize. They expect a scenario of hurt and pain and loss that is inexorable. There's very little they can do about it. It's all about learned helplessness, impotence as an ideology. And most of these people end up with an ideology of twilight of the gods, Goethe Damerhoem, German trees, aptly. So, look around you. Most people are busy destroying themselves, trapped in dead marriages and dead-end jobs, perfectionistic, self-denying, depressed, anxious, numb, dissociative, masochistic, falling in love and having sex for all the wrong reasons, unable to form attachments, ending up atomized alone, dying within their pods, never to be seen again, even by themselves.


Live from San Francisco, it's theCUBE, covering Spark Summit 2017, brought to you by Databricks. Welcome back to theCUBE. You are watching coverage of Spark Summit 2017. It's day two. We've got so many new guests to talk to today. We've already learned a lot, right, George? Yeah, we had some, I guess, pretty high bandwidth conversations. Yes, well I expect we're going to have another one here too because the person we have is the founder of Predictive Analytics World. It's Eric Siegel. Eric, welcome to the show. Hey, thanks, Dave. Thanks, George. You go by Dave or David? Oh, you can call me sir, and that would be... I would cry. Can I bow? Oh no, we're bowing to you. You're the author of the book, Predictive Analytics. I love the subtitle. The power to predict who will click, buy, lie, or die. Yes, that's right. And that actually sums up the industry, right? Right, so if people are new to the industry, that's sort of an informal definition of predictive analytics, basically also known as machine learning, right? Where you're trying to make predictions for each individual, whether it's a customer for marketing, a suspect for fraud or law enforcement, a voter for political campaigning, a patient for healthcare. So in general, it's on that level. It's prediction for each individual. So how does data help make those predictions? And then you can only imagine just how many ways in which predicting on that level helps organizations improve all their activities. Well, we know you were on the keynote stage this morning. Could you maybe summarize for the CUBE audience what a couple of the top themes that you were talking about? Yeah, I covered two advanced topics. I wanted to make sure this pretty technical audience was aware of because a lot of people aren't. And one's called uplift modeling. So that's optimizing for persuasion, for things like marketing and also for healthcare actually, and for political campaigning. So when you do predictive analytics for targeting marketing normally, sort of the traditional approach is, let's predict, will this person buy if I contact them? Because then, well, okay, maybe it's a good idea to spend the $2 to send them a brochure. It's marketing treatment, right? But there's actually a little bit different question that would make even drive even better decisions, which is not will this person buy, but would contacting them sending on the brochure influence them to buy? Will it increase the chance that we get that positive outcome? That's a different question. And it doesn't correspond with standard predictive modeling or machine learning methods. So uplift modeling, also known as net lift modeling, persuasion modeling, it's a way to actually create a predictive model like any other except that its target is, is it a good idea to contact this person because it will increase the chances that they're going to have the positive outcome. So that's the first of the two, and I crammed this all in the 20 minutes. The other was a little more commonly known, but I think people like to visit it. It's called p-hacking or vast search where you can be fooled by randomness and data relatively easily. In the era of big data, there's this all too common pitfall where you find a predictive insight in the data, and it turns out it was actually just a random perturbation. How do you know the difference? Fake news, right? Okay, fake news. Well, except that in this case it was generated by a computer, right? And then there's a statistical test that makes it look like it's actually statistically significant and we should have credibility to it on it or about it. So you can avert it, you have to compensate for the fact that you're trying lots, you're evaluating many different predictive insights or hypotheses, whatever you want to call it and make sure that the one that you are believing, you sort of checked for the ability that it wasn't just random luck. So that's known as p-hacking. All right, so uplift modeling and p-hacking. George, do you want to drill in on those a little bit? Yeah, I want to start from maybe the vocabulary of our audience where they'll say sort of like the uplift modeling goes beyond prediction. Would it, actually even for the second one with p-hacking is that where you're essentially playing with the parameters for the model to find the difference between correlation and causation and going from prediction to prescription? It's not about causation. It's actually, so correlation is what you get when you get a predictive insight or some component of a predictive model where you see these things are connected therefore one's predictive of the other. Now the fact that that does not entail causation is a really good point to remind people of as such. But even before you address that question, the first question is is this correlation actually legit? Is there really a correlation between these things? Is this an actual finding? Or is it just happened to be the case in this particular sample of limited sample data that I have access to at the moment, right? So it's just, is it a real link or correlation in the first place before you even start asking any question about causality? And it does have, it does relate it to what you alluded to with regard to tuning parameters because it's closely related to this issue of overfitting and people who do predictive modeling are very familiar with overfitting. The standard practice, all tools and implementations of machine learning and predictive modeling do this which they hold aside an evaluation set called test set. So you don't get to cheat, you create the predictive model, it learns from the data, it does the number crunching, it's mostly automated, right?  My thing's falling off here. Just look at it on your go for it. So then you evaluated over this hold aside set, it was quarantined so you didn't get to cheat. You didn't get to look at it when you're creating the model. So it serves as an objective performance measure. The problem is, and here's the huge irony, the things that we get from data, the predictive insights like there was one famous one that was broadcasted too loudly because it's not nearly as credible as they had first thought, is that an orange used car is a better one to buy. It's less likely to be a lemon. That's what it looked like in this one data set. The problem is that when you have a single insight where it's relatively simple, we're just talking about the car, the color to make the prediction. Like a predictive model is much more complex and deals with lots of other attributes, not just the color, for example, make your model, everything on that individual car, individual person, you can imagine all the attributes. That's the point of the modeling process, the learning process, how do you consider multiple things? If it's just a really simple thing, just based on the car color, then many of even the most advanced data science practitioners kind of forget that there's still potential to effectively overfit that you might have found something that doesn't apply in general, only applies over this particular set of data. So that's where the trap falls in. They don't necessarily hold themselves at a high standard of having this held aside test set. So it's just kind of ironic, I think the things that it's most likely to make the headlines, like orange cars, are simpler, easier to understand, but are less well understood that they could be wrong.  But we're also beginning to hear about message of sort of generating synthetic data so that if you don't have a lot of, I don't know if the term is organic training data, you know, and then test data, that we're getting to the point where we can do high quality models with less. Yeah, less of that trained it. Did you interview with a keynote speaker from Stanford about that? Oh no, we only saw a part of his speech. Yeah, the speech yesterday. And that's an area that I'm relatively new to, but it sounds extremely important because that is the bottleneck. He called it, you know, if data is the new oil, he's calling it the new new oil, which is more specific than data, it's training data. So the whole, all these machine learning or predictive modeling methods of which we speak are, in most cases, what's called supervised learning. So the thing that makes it supervised is you have a bunch of examples where you already know the answer. So you're trying to figure out, is this picture a cat or a dog? That means you need to have a whole bunch of data from which to learn the training data where you've already got it labeled. You already know the correct answer. And in many business applications, just because of history, you know who did or didn't respond to your marketing, you know what did or did not turn out to be fraudulent. History is experience from which to learn. It's in the data, so you do have that labeled, yes, no, like it's, you already know the answer. You don't need to predict on them. It's in the past, but you use it as training data. So we have that in many cases. But for something like classifying an image, and we're trying to figure out, does this have a picture of a cat somewhere in the image or whatever all these big image classification problems, you do need often a manual effort to label the data, have the positive and negative examples. That's what's called training data, the learning data. It's actually called training data. So there's definitely a bottleneck. So anything that can be done to avert that bottleneck, decrease the amount that we need, or find ways to make sort of rough training data that may serve as a building block for the modeling process, this kind of thing. That's not my area of expertise, sounds really intriguing though. What about, and this may be further out on the horizon, but one thing we're hearing about is the extreme shortage of data scientists who need to be teamed up with domain experts to figure out the knobs, the variables to create these elaborate models. And we're told that even if you're doing the sort of traditional, statistical machine learning models that eventually deep learning can help us identify the features or the variables just the way they sort of identify ears and whiskers and the nose and then figure out from that the cat. That's something that is in the near term, medium term in terms of helping to augment what the data scientist does. It's in the near term in that that's why everyone's excited about deep learning right now, is that basically the reason we built these things, these machines called computers, is because they automate stuff. Like pretty much anything that you can think of and define well, you can program, right? And then you've got a machine that does it. And of course one of the things we wanted to learn is actually to do is to learn from data. Now it's literally very analogous to what it means for a human to learn. You've got a limited number of examples trying to draw generalizations from those.  But sort of it becomes a level more complex when it's in an image, right? An image is worth 1,000 words and maybe literally a lot more than 1,000 words worth of data if it's high resolution. So how do you process that? Well there's all sorts of research of like well we can define a thing that tries to find arcs and circles and edges and this kind of thing or we can try to once again just let that be automatic, let the computer do that. So deep learning is a way to allow, I mean Spark is a way to make it operate quickly but there's another level of scale other than speed. The level of scale is just like how complex of a task can you leave up to the automaton to go by itself. And that's what deep learning does is it scales in that respect and it has the ability to automate more layers of that complexity as far as finding those kinds of what might be domain specific features and images. Okay but I'm thinking not just the help me figure out speech to text in natural language understanding or classifying images. Anything that is a signal where there's like a high bandwidth amount of data coming in that you want to classify. Okay so could that, does that extend to I'm building a very elaborate predictive model not on is there a cat in the video or in the picture so much as I guess you called it is there an uplift potential and how big is that potential for in a context of making a fail on an e-commerce site. So what I mean what you just tapped into is when you go to marketing and many other business applications you don't actually need to have high accuracy. What you have to do is have prediction that's better than guessing. So for example if I get a 1% response rate to my marketing campaign but I can find a pocket that's got 3% response rate it may be very much rocket science to define and learn from the data how to define that specifically defined sub-segment that has the higher response rate or whatever it is. So but the 3% isn't like I have high confidence this person is definitely going to buy it's still just 3% but that difference can make a huge difference it can improve the bottom line profit marketing by factor of five kind of thing in that right. So it's not necessarily about accuracy. Now if you've got an image and you need to know is there a picture of car or is this traffic like green or red somewhere in this image then there's certain application areas self-driving cars would have you it does need to be accurate right. But maybe there's more potential for it to be accurate because there's more predictability inherent to that problem like I can predict that there's predict that there's a traffic light that has a green light somewhere in image because I've got enough data enough label data and the nature of the problem is more tractable because it's not as challenging to find where the traffic light is and in which color it is. So you need it to scale to reach that level of classification performance in terms of accuracy or whatever measure you use for certain applications. Are you seeing like new methodologies like I think it reinforcement learning or where there's deep learning where the models sort of are adversarial where they can take, where they make sort of big advances in terms of what they can learn without a lot of supervision. You know like the ones where Oh it's more self-learning and it's unsupervised. Sort of glue yourself onto this video game screen and we'll give you control of the steering wheel and you figure out how to win. Yeah, I mean having less required supervision sort of more self-learning anomaly detection or clustering and these are some of the unsupervised ones. When it comes to vision there are parts of the process that can be unsupervised in the sense that you don't need labeled of your target like is there a car in the picture, right? But it can still find, it can still learn the sort of feature detection in a way that doesn't have that supervised data. Although that image classification in general and that level of deep learning is not my area of expertise, right? So that's a very up and coming part of machine learning but it's only needed where you have these high bandwidth inputs like an entire image, higher resolution or a video or a high bandwidth audio. So it's signal processing type problems where you start to need that kind of deep learning. Okay. Yeah, it's a great discussion Eric and we have just a couple of minutes to go in the segment here. Yeah. I want to make sure I give you a chance to talk about predictive analytics world. Sure. What's your affiliation with that and what do you want the CUBE audience to know? Oh, sure, yeah. So predictive analytics world, I'm the founder. It's the leading cross vendor event focused on commercial deployment of predictive analytics and machine learning. Our main events a few times a year is a broad scope business focus event but we also have vertical industry vertical focus specialized events just for financial services, healthcare, workforce, manufacturing and government applications of predictive analytics and machine learning. So there's a number of a year and you we've got two weeks from now in Chicago, October in New York and you can see the full agendas at predictiveanalyticsworld.com. All right. So great short commercial there. We've got 30 seconds left. The elevator pitch. So I'm going to ask you a tough question in 30 seconds. What is the toughest question you got after your keynote this morning? Maybe you're in a hallway conversation. What's the toughest question I got after my keynote? From one of the attendees. Oh, well the question that always comes up is how do you get this level of complexity across to non-technical people or your boss or your colleagues or your friends and family, right? By the way, that's something I worked really hard on with the book which is meant for all readers although the last few chapters have- How to get executive sponsors to understand what you're doing. Well, no, I mean that is to say give them the book because the point of the book is it's pop science, it's accessible, it's anecdotally driven, it's entertaining, it keeps it relevant. But it does address advanced topics at the end of the book. So it's sort of the industry overview kind of thing. But the bottom line there in general is that you want to focus on the business impact. So like what I mentioned briefly a second ago, if we can improve targeting marketing as much, it will increase profit by a factor of five. Something like that. So you start with that and then answer any questions they have about, well, how does it work? Are we going to, you know, what makes you, what makes it credible that it's really has that much potential in the bottom line, this kind of thing.  You start with the technology you're excited about and that's my background, right? So that's sort of the definition of being a geek is that you're more narrowing with the technology than the value it produces, right? Because it's amazing that it works and it's exciting and it's interesting, and it's scientifically challenging. But when you're talking to the decision makers, you have to start at the eventual care at the end of the stick, right? Which is the value. That's the business outcome. Yeah, yeah. Great, well that's going to be the last word. That might even make it on our Cubegem segment. Okay, cool. We're having great sound bites. George, thanks again, great questions. Eric, the author of Predictive Analytics, the power to predict who will click, buy, lie, or die. Thank you for being on the show. We appreciate your time. Sure, yeah, thank you. It's been great to meet you. All right, and thank you for watching theCUBE. We'll be back in just a few minutes with our next guest here at Spark Summit 2017.