You know what in the last few weeks we've seen some massive releases in the iron market But there's one brand that has so far been missing for quite a while in terms of new releases Well, at least when it comes to irons that is in recent weeks We've seen the Callaway apex pro line or we've seen the tailor-made P790s being released and not to mention the tight list T-Series of four new Additional irons to their lineup And that's not to mention in the early part of the year. We've seen new Callaway paradigm line up We've seen stealth from tailor-made We've seen the ZX range from Strickson and we've also seen the Ping G430 line But I did say we were missing one brand from that list and it's that brand, you know that so well Yeah, nothing quite feels like yes, of course that brand is Mizzuno and today's video is all about well Basically are warning to anyone who is considering buying new irons right now because We've got a bit of news that you may or may not be aware of and the simple explanation is Wait is my opinion if you're considering pulling the plug on some new irons because the Mizzuno pro lineup is About to be refreshed I don't know when exactly but I know it is definitely on the horizon and in my opinion you should sit tight And for what I'm seeing you should sit tight because From a few leaks on Instagram and a little bit of poking around what I've managed to find out is that Imminently we will see a new lineup of Mizzuno pro 2 4 1 2 4 3 and 2 4 5 This is how the lineup is going to look there's not massive changes visually But there are some elements I want to talk about and from what I've done in terms of digging round I can certainly see what we can expect in terms of improvements in the next iteration For Mizzuno pro irons, so let's talk about the elements that I do know in terms of those leaked images And a little bit of digging round well like I said there is a change in the way they look to a degree But in particular it's that 2 4 3 that was the 2 2 3 which has changed in my opinion It's only a small tweak, but it now sits a lot more streamlined in between The 2 4 1 and what will be the 2 4 5 and what that means is the ability to blend them into a set Is more easily done from a visual perspective because that one did really in my opinion the 2 2 3 Stick out a little bit and put me off mixing those sets together Oh my word There's no doubt about it and nothing does feel like a Mizzuno and especially striking a long iron a 5 iron in the 2 2 1 That's pure, but aside from the looks what else do we know and before I give any sort of reveal I'm going to ask you a question If you own any of these sets of irons in terms of that 2 2 1 lineup If you could ask for one more or maybe two more things What would they be if I said faster ball speeds and more forgiveness? I'm pretty much sure all of you and say yes, please Well if we start with that 2 4 5 which was the the more forgiving model of the lot then what I am reading is It has become more forgiving than its predecessor It's got a wider a thicker area in terms where we're about hit where we hit the ball from It's also got faster ball speeds from a new piece of technology It's been introduced for the very first time claiming it to be the most forgiving and fastest Mizzuno iron ever We will see obviously, but the other interesting thing I can see from a visual perspective Is the top line of the 2 2 5 seems to have been very much chamfered off Which gives again a perception of a much smaller iron at a dress in terms of that top line And I love the fact that they've done that because effectively they've made what is And I'm with a bit of help being designed visually for a player that needs their help But wants to play the smaller profile. I certainly would fit into that category right Let's see if we can get another 5 iron with a 2 2 1 Oh, do you know what that's so nice? I just Pulled it down the left Oh, I'm clack the tree at the same time. I'm definitely not good enough for these things. Hello I do question. God blimey. They feel so good I generally give up a few yards for these and I can't wait to try the 2 4 ones But anyway back to the middle line, which will be the 2 4 3 Very much sits in the middle a bit more muscled back than that. What will be the 2 4 1 What I'm reading is each of these irons has very much been designed Individually in terms of the way it's made up. It's looking like we've seen with other manufacturers Almost designing the iron individually based on spin performance based on launch characteristics So each iron looking to do something very specific and what is in the bottom end of the bag Will be very different from the top end of the bag. So something again very different in those 2 4 3's Just release out. Yeah, that's more like it I'm just about handle a 9 iron with a chip and run in the 2 2 ones So 2 4 ones what's changing there? Well a big mention it's all about them thickening The hitting area as they call it. So for me that suggests again We've got potentially a bit more ball speed, but potentially as well A bit more in terms of forgiveness in a 2 4 1 now It's not necessarily what you're looking for in an iron that is all out a blade to all intents and purposes But the idea of that little bit of help forgiveness and ball speed Well, it wouldn't go amiss no matter what type of player you are. You know the problem I have is every time I pick up a club such as the 2 4 1 2 2 1 I just love the damn things and I'm already thinking I cannot wait to hit The next lineup of Mizuno pros The fact is I know nothing more than this at this stage and like I said It was from a little bit of digging round that I got to where we are right now But the video is all about giving you a bit of a heads up because there's nothing worse than Parting with a bit of cash in and finding out something else has been released just weeks after You've parted with your hard-earned money. So I felt it was more of a A duty to Report what I found many of you will have seen these leaks on instagram But many of you won't So like I said, it's a bit of a heads up as I said at the beginning nothing majorly changed there We don't know anything like pricing and all those kind of things But expect these to be top end in terms of price and it very much is a quality product a quality build I just love the Mizuno pro lineup I come that close to switching up into some kind of mix up of the three sets The first time round and I've got a funny feeling that's just a quick glance at these if they are A little bit more forgiving if they've got a little bit more ball speed out of that center of the club face Do you know what? I think they just could be the perfect irons because there's nothing looks as good as them right now on the market in my opinion Certainly the feel is really right up there and arguably nothing does feel like a Mizuno in this lineup So I'm just questioning our earth. I'm not going to end up with these in the bag. Anyway, that's me Don't we'll keep it short and sweet. Like I said a bit of a heads up. Let me know what your thoughts are What are you thinking of this new lineup? Are you hanging on in there? Are you going to be Saving the pennies and looking to make an investment very very shortly. I don't know when but it's going to be soon, right? I'll see you soon


This is Stink Tech, Hawaii. Community matters here. I'll call you right back. Yeah. Remember that. Aloha. I'm Marsha Joyner. And these are the ties that bind. Today, we are going to talk to Jake Oliver, who is the publisher emeritus and former president of the board for the Afro-American newspapers, and he is in Baltimore. And it is a 125-year legacy. And so we are going to talk about just that, 125-year legacy. So Jake, are you there? There he is. I'm here. Oh, how handsome you are. You're proud of him. Oh, well, I'm biased. Just so that the audience knows that this beautiful man is my cousin, we share a set of grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents. And so to talk about the legacy, this 125-year-old newspaper, which has chronicled the lives of black people in America for that long, in sharing and ties that bind, I thought it necessary to set the stage of all that we have been through as a people, as black people in America, that this was the best place to start. Jake, so tell us all about the Afro. I'm not sure we have enough time. 125 years. 125 years. Yes, it covers a lot of things. When I think about the historical span of time that this institution has more or less been serving its community, and minority communities in general in this country, I generally break it up into decades. And that really comes from me having at least the opportunity over the last 31-plus years to really get involved in what we call the archives, the old editions that over the last 15, 20 years we were able to organize, started an indexing, and probably among the most proudest accomplishments has been the digitization of the old editions, most of the old editions, which had permitted many people on the internet to access and research the historical events that the Afro has been reporting about over the last 125 years. But during that 125-year period, it really is interesting to see just like anything, it grows, it changes, it evolves. And some of the things are quite astounding, and others are not. There is always one consistent flow throughout the entire period, as we've always recognized the need for us to have a strong and a very prominent voice on issues relating to promoting the progress of minority communities across the country. And that's modern-day civil rights. But back in the turn of the 20th century, it was not healthy to be too loud, and we did not really have that big of a voice. But over the first decade, we could, as a result of reporting on events, we could really begin to see how the black community was becoming aware of how it did have rights that it needed to become a lot more vocal in protecting and progressing. And I guess some of the early events that is present day, and when you look back, Marcia, some of those events that we reported in the first decade of the 20th century, 1902 and through 19, probably 12, they're rather shocking. One of the more interesting articles appeared in a 1906 January edition front page of the Afro. I talked about the fact that over the past year, there have been 73 lynchings. Most of the lynchings occurred in the south, and of the 73 lynchings, 69 of those lynchings were of black men, three were white men, and one was a black woman. But the article, which was very interesting, which really caught my attention, went into a level of specificity as to not only the number and the states, but also the monks and also categorized and indexed the alleged violations that apparently gave sort of a way to the unfortunate conclusion of the lynchings. And you really get a sense that the writer of that article, even though they were being very polite, they were very, they were outraged. He or she was outraged by the intensity and the numbers of atrocities that were occurring primarily through the south, Mississippi, Georgia, et cetera. And then it got to the point of where there was one that described what these people were alleged to have done, and then it says, of course, then it gets to the poor fellow in Louisiana who got lynched because he was alleged to have stolen one dollar. Well, you know, my mother, your aunt, said while she was at Fisk University, which is in Tennessee, that there was a lynching every weekend just outside of town, every weekend. And that was in the, what, 30s? The best in the 30s. Yeah. Yeah. The lynchings really reached their peak around right after World War I between 1920, 1919, and 1927 that they just, and it was also precipitated by and large, unfortunately, by the return of black troops from Europe who were in uniform. And they posed a threat to many of the southern communities and resulted in these young men just getting killed. Oh, yeah. But that was just reflective of, again, jumping back to the first decade. There was an article in 1907, I believe, that talked about the fact that all of the black troops in the U.S. Army were sent out of the country.  They just were very, very concerned. And there was, there had been riots and abuses, but to the extent that there were, after that decision by the Secretary of War, which was supported by President Teddy Roosevelt, there were no longer any black soldiers in the country until probably 1909, 1910. And primarily, as a result of the newspaper, the Afro and the black community beginning to find its voice in objecting to the abuse of this magnitude. Well, you know, next. Go ahead. But that sort of leads into the second decade where the voice became organized. And it was very interesting that we were tricked into organizing it because we thought that we were going to have a stronger voice to promote black opportunities coming out of the 1912 presidential campaign because for the first time the black community was approached as a black community. Its vote was approached, but most important by the Democratic Party in its candidate in 1912 was Woodrow Wilson. And Woodrow Wilson made lots of promises. And he sent black AME bishops into the black community to try and convince. And indeed did convince the Afro and majority of the black community to support this very quiet intellectual past president of Princeton University to support him as president. And unfortunately, six months after we had been instrumental in electing him, we realized that we had made a big mistake because he... It didn't turn out that way. So he got rid of every black person who had any meaningful position in the federal government and never hired any black people at all except for one person as an ambassador to two countries in Africa. And that... Your grandfather. Your grandfather. Do we have a picture of... We do. It should be number three. Number three. This one right here. That is Dr. Jacob B. Oliver, which is our grandfather. And he was one of those nominated by Woodrow Wilson to... Become the ambassador to Trinidad, I think. But he rejected it. It could have been either Liberia or Trinidad. It was Liberia, yeah. And the other one in the picture is our grandmother, Rose Murphy Oliver. Yeah. That's Rose Murphy and this is Dr. Jacob B. Oliver. Those are our grandparents. And while we've got the pictures up, let's go back to number one. And we go... This is George Enoch Howard, who was our... What? Great-great-grandfather? Something like that. And he was the largest landowner in the state of Maryland, Montgomery and Howard Counties. Howard Counties. I told his name after him. Howard Counties. So that his daughter, Martha, married... John H. Murphy. John H. Murphy's senior. And... A person who really fits the medal in getting you out there. So if we can go to the next picture, this one. Okay. John H. Murphy is the one holding the baby. This picture was done in 1900. And so it was Martha, the daughter of the rich landowner. And of course, John H. Murphy came back from the Civil War, stumbles into a rich landowner that had daughters. He married Martha and thus all of those other people. And one in the background, Rose, is our grandmother. So that's how we're moving fast through generations. But it was John H. Murphy who needed to support all this family that he had. The story is he borrowed $200 from his wife. $200 at the turn of the century was a lot of money. Thus began the Afro. So, Jake, thus we begin. Yeah. Yeah. And it was really in partnership with several of the existing black churches in Baltimore because it was two of the preacher's partners had really started a black publication and hired John H. Murphy Sr., who after two or three or four years turned around and bought the paper from them. And at that point, things started to really started to change. It started to focus more on developing a voice for promoting progress in the black community. Whereas when it was initially started, it was really like a Sunday School publication, a religious publication. But it's also interesting, Marsha, to compare the decades, as I said, with the types of articles that appear. Back in the first decade, it was very rare that you're going to have any articles reporting crime because I'm not sure what crimes existed in the black community at that time. I remember running across an article from 1904 recently that was talked about in Frostburg, Maryland. There had been four libraries. And that was front page. Yeah. But it was very clear that those libraries were all committed by white people. And if we're reading that from the perspective of the day, why was that therefore put in the front page? Fairly because the fact that crime wasn't a big deal. As a child, I remember walking everywhere and no one mentioned crime. Listen, Jake, we need to take a break and we'll be back in one minute. This is Think Tech Hawaii, raising public awareness. I just walked by and I said, what's happening, guys? They told me they were making music. The host of Voice of the Veteran, seen here live every Thursday afternoon at 1 p.m. on Think Tech Hawaii. As a fellow veteran and veterans advocate with over 23 years experience serving veterans, active duty and family members, I hope to educate everyone on benefits and accessibility services by inviting professionals in the field to appear on the show. In addition, I hope to plan on inviting guest veterans to talk about their concerns and possibly offer solutions. As we navigate and work together through issues, we can all benefit. Please join me every Thursday at 1 p.m. for the Voice of the Veteran. Aloha. Aloha. I'm Marcia Joyner and this is the Ties of Vine. And today we are talking to Jake Oliver and we are talking about 125 years of Afro-American newspapers and all of the issues or as it has chronicled our struggles in America. And the one that jumps out to me simply because I was a child at the time and the word sedition was a big word. I had no idea what it meant. And still it seems strange. During World War II all of the black newspapers chronicled all of the troops that were fighting in Europe for somebody else's independence and yet they came home to rank segregation. It was just awful. Everywhere. We talk about the South but it was everywhere. And so all of the papers wrote an article after article after article. And Jake will tell you more about all of the articles, all of the black newspapers supporting the troops. And at some point the federal government charged all of the black newspapers with sedition which means giving aid and comfort to the enemy because they were telling the truth. We were tending towards insurrection. Yes. And they were my recollection on this is I wasn't born then but the point is that this was a time during which the National Newspaper Public Association which is the black press association really began to galvanize its voice because of the fact that all its black newspaper across the country were really reporting about the same thing highlighting the injustices that were focused on black troops. Now this is not something that just suddenly appeared in the Second World War because it really became very apparent in the First World War. So much so when the black troops in Europe, France, there was a front page article in the 1918 edition of the Afro that talked about the French government rose up and registered a formal objection to the way black troops were being mishandled by the white officers. And that the entire country was offended by the poor treatment of the black soldiers. But when you get to the Second World War it became even more prominent. And it was so much so that because of the fact that at that point in time the black press had a better organized sense of itself. We began to make an impact and I got the impression that it did have an impact on President Roosevelt and also on God, Eleanor, his wife was very helpful. But it also really resulted in Vice President Truman after Roosevelt's death who became president. One of the first things he did was to pass an executive order that integrated the troops because of the fact that he felt that segregation was an atrocity. Particularly you send all these troops across the oceans and for purposes of fighting to liberate and promote democracy. But when they come home they have everything but anything but justice. And he felt that segregation promoted this continuation of the injustice that was very prominent, particularly when these troops were arriving back from Europe and from the Pacific. So the concern initially arose as a result of the organized voice raised by the black press in the early 40s that caught the attention of various politicians. And eventually got President Roosevelt a lot more sensitive to it than what he otherwise probably would have. Again, thanks to Eleanor. You know, anybody that tuned in late, we are talking about the Afro-American newspapers and its 125 year history which chronicles our history, most of our history in the United States. The good and the bad, there was a lot of good in the paper, lots and lots as you go through. We look at so many documents, documentaries of other people and they use the archives, the Afro archives. There's so many stories and we see it over, especially the war stories. We had a cousin who was a war correspondent. Which one of, which one of, was it, Carlita? It was Betty. Betty. Betty Moss. Betty Phillips, yes. She was a war correspondent but there was another one that was in uniform somewhere, we have pictures of her. I didn't think of that. It was one of them. And they were war correspondents and Lacey. He was a war correspondent. Sam Lacey. Sam Lacey was a war correspondent. Yeah, but you had Art Carter. Art Carter. He moved in with Tuskegee Airmen in Italy. He had Ali Stewart, who was one of the first black war correspondent in the war, in the Second World War. The Afro during the Second World War, we were sending black correspondents all over the place. And to cover Pacific Theater as well as the European Theater. And we had some very famous correspondents as a result of that. It was Art Carter and Ali Stewart that come to mind almost instantly as the ones who really caught the flavor of the various parts of the war. Not only the coverage, out coverage of Tuskegee Airmen, but also what it was like to be a black soldier walking down the Chantilly Bay. The day the American troops liberated Paris. I mean, there were stories that were posted that really gave a clear sense of what the black involvement was, but also what the black experience was to be part of such an international event such as the World War II. Well, you know, I have such vivid memories of World War II, and I think it's because of the paper. As a little girl, your other cousin Carl and I, Carl Edward and I, because our fathers were in the war and our mothers were working at the Afro, we went to public school that was close to the paper, and then we would walk back to the Afro at the end of the day and then spend the rest of the day. So I thought everybody went to work because that's what we were doing. We were going to work. And listening to you now, I realized that's the reason I am so familiar with the war, because it was an everyday thing. The paper was everyday. It was every bit of the war, and it just occurred to me that that's why I'm so familiar with it and seem so much a part of it. It's because it was everyday. It was there. The paper was totally invested in the war. Yeah. Again, we're trying to give people a picture of the involvement of the minorities and the contribution of minorities. And Marsha, I guess one of the most striking articles, front page articles that caught my attention was an article that appeared on the front page of the paper before we jumped into the war. It was in 1939. And the front page headline talked about the fact that how black troops were not going to be sent to Arizona to pick cotton. Completely froze. That's what they were going to do because there was resistance. Keeping in mind that there was segregation at that time. The troops weren't integrated. But there were black officers. And there was a lot of the troops, particularly some of the southern troops, really resisted having to even give respect to a black officer who outright them. And so the question is, well, what do you do with these people? And they said, well, get them out of sight, not in a way. But luckily, Roosevelt jumped in and killed it. But it was, I believe, Secretary of War Stimson was one who also had considered it. But luckily, because of the pressure and the outrage registered by the black press, they backed off. Jay, darling, we have only gotten to the forties of 125-year odyssey. So we are out of time. Therefore, you will have to come back. And we will have to go from 1950 up to today. So thank you. But honestly, we all start in 1944 because there's an article where we interviewed Albert Einstein at Princeton where he talked about the difference between what he experienced as a Jew in Germany versus what he could see blacks were being subjected to here in America. And that is something that is absolutely astounding. Oh, okay. So now we know we know we have a way to pick up on part two. Jake, thank you so much. It's a pleasure spending this time with you. And we look forward to part two. Aloha.


Hi everyone it's MJ and welcome to this introductory video to the course on conditional expectations. Now in the previous course we saw that sometimes we can have multiple random variables that contribute to our data. What we're going to be doing in this course is extending that idea and we're going to be extending it by looking a lot more into probability and generating functions. So the generating functions come to help us with something called a compound distribution whereas the probability is going to help us with our conditional distributions. And I mean conditional distributions this is very much of the situation where you know what is the variance of y given x and writing that out in terms of y and x where these two things are random variables. We're also looking at this thing called the compound distribution which is used a lot in insurance and the general idea is that as an insurance company you have two random variables that contribute to your total claims and the one is the number of claims you know do 10 people claim do 100 people claim how many people are going to claim and then each of those claims is going to be its own random amount you know if you're doing household insurance every person who makes a claim their amount is going to be different it's going to be a random variable and the number as well these things are going to have unique parameters and unique distributions that need to be combined to form a compound distribution and generating functions are once again going to come and save the day they're going to help us avoid having to use calculus and with conditional distributions we're going to see a lot more of the probability theory that we use being applied and once again this can then help us when it comes to answering questions in the insurance industry. So that is a very very brief introduction to conditional expectations we're looking at you know what's going to be the mean and the variance of them we're also looking at compound distributions and how we can apply the moment generating functions to this material but i'll see you guys in the course and i'm looking forward to this one keep well cheers


Alright, this is crab sh**t.  Take care.  You were up 14 points, threw it all away in one quarter, and say, you know, I'm gonna come on sidekick now. Who remembers the surprise on sidekick here, though? Yo, who remembers the surprise on sidekick here? Dog, you talking about rage? Oh, well, I wish I was streaming in MEN 12. Oh, my God. Big expectations for the Lions. What are the Lions' expectations for 2023? Division title? Team Money, I don't really know. We'll see. Number two in the NFC? Wow. That's tough. Okay, a lot of these jerseys these guys have on or might be the nastiest. Those aren't set. I suck, dude.  Like, Jesus Christ.  Oh, good sh**t. Might be a new, I might have to call that. Golf carried that team. Well, golf is literally still on the team or also up. Sauce, sauce, sauce. I have a ringtone. You know, I have a son and a wife that are out right now. So it's kind of important for me to like, you know, be on the phone, be ringtoned up, things like that. You know, bro, like that was the wildest sh**. My dude looked like he wasn't blitzing and then blitzed. God, these kids are playing good defense on me. God, you f**king nerds. No, that was my fault. I didn't need to do all that sh**. I did way too much right there. That was my fault. I just feel like I just, there's just no pressure on the quarterback, bro. There we go. Back to that. Come on, man. We got to get back to the sh**. Like, what the f**k was that?   These panther jerseys are terrible. They look like sh**. God, I just feel like I'm just not getting no pressure on the quarterback. They patched me with this loop. Let's just go back to running f**king center. The milkman. The milkman is, he's just over throwing everything. Come on, man. The milkman is just killing me right now. Come on. Dude, we are getting f**ked bagged right now. Kittle, can we wake the f**k up one time? I mean, I don't know what knockout I need for that. I really don't know what knockout I need for that one. That's tough. Yeah, maybe Atwooder touched them before the knockout could get there. I don't know what happened there. All right, my homies. Let's wake the f**king, throw some dots here, buddy. How am I 2 for f**king 10 right now? This is tough. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I could have scored every drive. I made some bad throws, personal bad throws that my homies made worse, but they were bad throws. Pick. Oh, no. Oh, my God. Ah, that turns into a f**k. Oh, that's so bad. Oh, that was so tough, too. Like, I thought they would click me on the flat guy and they'd click me on the next guy and thank you. Atwooder, good play. That's like the, y'all stay getting people with that 3-wreck right there.  The HUD. Is it called the HUD? Come on. Like, Carmichael, just get set. I had C-Rowl. I just saw Blitz and Guard of the Ball all the time out here. Dude, the milkman is dominating me. The milkman is actually tough as hell. Man, I want to double team him, but he's like f**king blitzing. That's what I, I don't know what I have over there. I have free edge protector. I can't, I can't double team him. Just can't. Let's go. Who's that, AJ? Big time catch, man.  Pick artists. Let's go mid-read. Perfect. Let's get three out of this. Oh, man. I can turn this half around. Boys, talk to me. How would a Eagle's not been a Superbonus decade? Like, why not? Give me the argument. Why not? All right, this is crab sh**t.  Take care.  You were up 14 points, threw it all away in one quarter and say, you know, I'm gonna come on side kick now. Who, who remembers the surprise on side kick year though? Yo, who remembers the surprise on side kick year dog? You talk about rage. Oh, I wish I was streaming the men 12. Oh my God. Oh my God. That would have broke some TVs. The onsite, the surprise on side kick dog. Yo, you're good for one a game on a surprise on side kick. Oh, you got to get in there and close that fumble peppers. Whoa. I mean, you can only do it once a game. So here you go, Pacman. You just saying I'm just though. You saw me just get, I just got screened by my purple zone. Let's go baggy Simpson. Just frozen. I'm frozen. I just can't look. Oh my God.  Nano detected when I'm five yards behind the line. Oh, we can't let him start glitching the opponent. I f**k dude. Yeah, run the ball. Run the ball too. If I was getting kicked out of me, 24 unanswered. I'd run inside zone two if I were you. Good play, bro. Good play. Put that one in the hall of fame. Yeah. Yeah. Come on. No huddle. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I don't need to catch it. I will catch it again. Yeah, I will catch it again. That's a great throw right there, man. One of the best. One of the best I've seen pepper. It's like, what do I pay you to do here? Garnet sauce. Oh, wow. Sauce.  How are those Eagles doing? Better than the Giants. I'll tell you that much better than the Cowboys. I'll tell you that much. Better than the Colts. Better than the Raiders. I don't sidekick if I were you too. People that play this game, dude. I swear to God. Was that not fair, boys? I can't lie. Milkman just got moved. I can't. Yo, Milkman got moved like a JV player right there. Oh, I was surprised. Is that part of my momentum? Do I got stronger blocking? Yo, they do Milkman out of the way.  Like, how bad do you have to be to throw that pass? What's the level of act that you have to be to throw, like, holy hell. Ain't it, boys? How bad you got to be as an Eagles fan? Ho, ho, ho, ho. Ho, ho, ho, ho. Got a medium short knockout on this. Like, what are we doing here? Dude, how are we smoking so many throws today, man? Like the amount of interceptions I could tell that you guys throw was. Oh, let's go, man. That's unfortunate. I ever had production like this from the Milkman. We've been in trouble. GG's, GG's, GG's. This was a good game. The Milkman is tough, bro.  Bulls, GG's, man. Now you play decent. You play good defense. GG's, GG's, GG's.


Tricks to making $100 a day on YouTube without making videos hidden secrets Okay So you want to make money and you want to do it fast and you want to do it on YouTube? But you don't quite know how in this video I'm going to show you how you don't even have to make your own videos and you can make money on YouTube and we're starting right now Hey, I'm JR Fisher. If you're new to my channel, you got a subscribe.  Don't forget to do that now I've been selling online since 2009 Long time and I've sold digital products and physical products and I got to tell you I've learned a lot of things along the way And that's exactly what I share in this channel teaching you how to start run and grow your online business Now if you've already tried to make a little bit of money on YouTube, right? You tried things out share your comments below Tell me what experiences you've had and what you've done and in this video I'm going to show you how you can make some money. So let's get started right now Oh before I forget I've got a course a course to sell you know It's a $97 course that you can get absolutely free all you have to do is watch to the end of this video Click in the link description down there and grab my free e-commerce course Okay, let's get going and let me show you how you can make a hundred dollars a day on YouTube without making videos Okay, so here I am at YouTube. How can you make money on YouTube without making videos? Well, here's the truth. You can get paid for views on Videos and what we want to do is we want to create some viral videos So how do we do that? Well, what we're going to do is we're actually going to use content from other videos That are already viral now some common searches that people do are top 10 So we're going to put in top 10 right here And just we're going to put top 10 Oh, let's see crashes. We'll put crashes in here. That's something interesting All right, so once we've got top 10 crashes in here We enter and search now if you notice there's a lot of videos here pretty bad looking videos here This one's got 4.6 million views It's got 4.6 million views right here and the thing is you can actually get paid Based on the number of views you get so once I've done this search What I want you to do is click this filter button right here and open it up And then I want you to go over here to click on creative comments now What this means is this is content that's on YouTube that the person who has uploaded it said you can use my Content no problem. So I'm gonna click on that. I'm gonna go back to the filter again I'm also going to click on view count because that way it will pull all the ones that have the most views now If you notice the first one up here is plane crash accidents airplane crash, okay? 28 million views here now if I click on this right here And I watch part of this video. Let me fast forward This actually shows plane crashes. So this one here if you look at it There's a plane going down in the woods. You could actually download this particular video here Oh, that wasn't a good ending. Oh, here's one coming into a parking lot. Let's see what happens there. Oh, it's not parking Okay, so there's another airplane that's landed in a parking lot. Now if we go over to this person's channel It's called the best compilations And we click on it You'll find You will find that they have 289,000 subscribers all they've done is they've taken videos and looks like ships and cars and airplanes and they've made a Compilation of accidents and they've run the video now to give you an example right here of the kind of money that these people could Be making let's go back over to this one video here. And this was plane crashes. I'm gonna stop that I don't see more planes crash Okay, so what we're gonna notice here about this particular one is it's got 28 million or speed 28 million views now the way let me pull up a calculator the way you're gonna get paid on YouTube is first off you have to have a thousand subscribers So you're gonna have to start doing this but you can get it pretty fast with this type of video And once you have a thousand subscribers and 4,000 hours of watch time in 12 months You can start getting paid now How much do you get paid it can be anywhere from 25 cents per thousand on up to nine or ten dollars per thousand So in this case here we had 28 million on this one video. So let's stick that in there Good enough zeroes there. There we go. So it's 28 million and we're going to divide that by 1,000 Okay, because you get paid per thousand And we come up with 28,000. Okay, so we're at 28,000 right here now 28,000 and let's get back to our calculator And we're going to figure out how much money we would have made on that one video there 28,000 right times What we'll say five dollars on this particular one. So this one video has netted them 140,000 dollars. It's crazy, right? So how hard would it be for you to go in here and search and we'll do something else in here? We'll do Accidents that's something else people like but we'll do funny Okay, so we're going to do funny accidents because I don't want to see more plane crashes there This one here has 1.8 million. So we're going to do that same search thing here Make sure that you go back and click creative comments every time because this will uncheck itself And then you'll be taking content. You shouldn't be taking we don't want that to happen And then we're going to go back and we're going to go by view count And we've got here this one here is 524,000 says dangerous bullfight accidents compilation Funniest videos most awesome bullfighting festival. Here's an elephant. So you could take any one of these here and you know Some of them are going to have a few hundred thousand views and we're going to have millions of views The point is if you Curate a lot of these which means nothing more than downloading them making a few changes on them and then uploading them to your channel You can actually make money on views. So it's really that simple. Okay. Now you may be thinking to yourself I don't want a bunch of car crashes and things about animals and funny things on my channel You don't have to so matter of fact you could just create another channel quite simply create another channel That's just for your videos that you've curated for the creative commons videos Nobody will know what you it won't be associated with you And you could use that as the channel to show all your videos and to go viral on So that's all there really is to it the content is already there All you have to do is put it together put it into another channel And that channel could really take off and start making you money today. The channels are free to do It's free to monetize all you got to do is have a bank account for them to put the money in and that's a pretty cool thing for you I hope you enjoyed this video if you did you got to join the family you got to subscribe By hitting that button down there that says subscribe. Okay, you got to do that join the family You become a vip if you Bring the bell now you got to ring the bell on top of subscribing Because that bell is the notification bell and then you have to turn on all notifications Once you do that you'll be vip fisher family person And we can send you emails and let you know every single time I do a video now as promised I have an e-commerce course that is a 97 dollar value that is below All you have to do is click the link if you click that link guess what you get free access to my e-commerce course Absolutely free now if you like this video, tell me why put in the comments below If you've made videos for youtube before tell me what you've made Let me see you some of that put it in the comments below. I really appreciate you listening to this video and I'll see you in the next one Hey, thanks for watching my video. Don't forget to subscribe to my channel and click that little bell right there So you can be notified every time I do a new video Also, click on one of those videos there. Keep watching on my channel


Hi, I'm Kristen Whitney with the University of Maryland Medical Center. Joining me today is Dr. Silky Neeterhouse, Associate Professor of Surgery and Dr. Kapil Saharia, Assistant Professor of Medicine, both at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Neeterhouse specializes in kidney transplantation, pancreas transplant and laparoscopic and single port donor nephrectomy at the University of Maryland Medical Center. She's also received two kidney transplants herself bringing a unique perspective to the field of transplantation and immunosuppression management. Dr. Saharia is fellowship trained in infectious disease and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the National Institute of Health's Vaccine Research Center. He joined the University of Maryland School of Medicine's Institute of Human Virology in 2012 and currently serves as the Chief of the Transplant Infectious Disease Service. Thank you for joining me today. Thanks for having us. And thanks for all of you watching at home. Please be sure to like this video to let us know that you're watching. So to begin with, what vaccines are currently available in terms of COVID-19? Right now, we have two vaccines that are available. One is a vaccine made by a company called Moderna. The other is a vaccine made by a company called Pfizer BioNTech. Both of these vaccines are what are called mRNA vaccines and these are new types of vaccines. They use a delivery system to deliver a code and that code instructs ourselves to make a specific protein that the virus uses to attach to our cells and it trains our immune cells to react to that protein and that is how we develop our immune response to the virus should we see the virus or get infected with the virus. So those are the two that are available now and there are many others that are still under investigation that we may hear about in the coming months. How safe are the vaccines? Yeah, that's a really good question. And I think that's something that a lot of people are concerned about, especially because these are relatively new vaccines. But the answer is that these are actually quite safe. These vaccines have been administered to over 70,000 individuals over the course of several studies. And by and large people have tolerated the vaccines quite well, apart from just kind of the general expected side effects. I think the biggest safety concerns that have come up are several cases of severe allergic reaction that people have had to the vaccine. It's not unexpected. People who are given a new medication or even a vaccine can have allergic reactions. And so I think the most important thing is that patients are monitored for a period of time after the vaccines are administered. But overall, I think what's been shown is that there is a pretty good safety signal from these two vaccines. And could someone potentially get COVID-19 from the vaccine? Well, there's no vaccine, no virus in these vaccines at all. So there's zero chance of getting COVID from them, although you can get sick from some side effects. What are some of the side effects from the vaccine? So most of the side effects are rather mild and it includes things like local side effects at the injection site. So it would be things like arm pain or swelling or redness. There can also be some systemic side effects, things like fevers or chills and headache, nausea, just not feeling quite perfectly for a couple of days after the vaccine. And are side effects different in transplant patients? Well, for now we really don't know. I can tell you that as a transplant patient I went for one of my two shots so far. And I did have pretty good arm pain that started about 12 hours after the vaccine, followed by some fevers and chills, even like a light headache and just feeling tired for a day or two. Some of my other friends who are transplant patients have had a vaccine and they've only had arm pain with it. But this is, you know, all anecdotal evidence. The truth is, neither of these vaccines were studied in the transplant population. So we really don't know on a large scale if the side effects are exactly the same or slightly different. How did your vaccine go? Yeah, okay. So I had quite a bit of pain at the site of injection. But the good news is it did wear off after about 24 hours. I did feel a little bit fatigued and had some mild chills. But again, these were all very short-lived. And, you know, I think that these were some of the side effects that had been written about and expected. How is the vaccine given? So the vaccine is given as an injection in the arm. And with the two vaccines that are available right now, the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine, they both require two injections. With the Pfizer vaccine, the two injections are supposed to be about three weeks apart. And with the Moderna vaccine, the two injections are about four weeks apart. Great. And how well does the vaccine work? Go ahead. So the data that has come out so far has shown that the vaccine seems to be about 95% effective. So what that means is that out of 100 people that have received the vaccine, 95 of them will not have COVID infection. And that is actually a really tremendous number. You know, a vaccine, for a vaccine to achieve that kind of efficacy, I think is really amazing. The vaccine, the two vaccines do not necessarily prevent the transmission of COVID-19. But I think what the data shows is that they do prevent the infection from developing. And in the rare circumstance that you may still get the infection, these vaccines seem to be fairly protective against having severe infection with COVID-19. And how well does the vaccine work in transplant patients? Again, we really don't know. Because no transplant patient was really enrolled in the, you know, efficacy studies. So there are ongoing studies for transplant patients that to enroll in to figure out if it is as effective or if it's effective at all. Based on the side effects that three of us have had, I would guess that there is at least some efficacy, but that's completely unproven at this point in time. Well, thank you so much doctors, Neaterhouse and Dr. Saharia. Now I'd love to ask you some questions that we received on our Facebook page. The first one, Rose asks, well, I still need to wear a mask and keep my social distance after I get the vaccine. I'll tackle this silky. That's all right. So, so unfortunately, even though these vaccines seem to be highly effective in preventing infection, we don't have enough data yet to say that these vaccines prevent the transmission of the COVID-19 virus. So as a result of that, I think the general recommendations are that we still practice social distancing and that we still wear a mask around in public. But, you know, the hope is that as we get more data, maybe those recommendations might change. But as it stands now, those measures that we've been implementing for the last six to nine months are still what we should follow. Maria wants to know, can I get vaccinated if I've already had COVID-19? Yeah, you can. I think at the moment, the recommendation is that if you've had COVID-19 before that you wait some time. I think currently the recommendation is about three months before you get your vaccine. But as you go along, you can still get vaccinated and we believe that you probably should still get vaccinated because after COVID we don't know how strongly your immune system responded and how protected you are from that response. And I'll just add to that. And that's I think especially true in our transplant patients that, you know, transplant patients may end up having a lower response rate to the actual infection. And we talk about, you know, these protective antibodies that can develop after infection. So we don't know how long those will actually last in transplant patients and it may not last as long as it would in someone who's not transplanted. So I agree with what Dr. Neeterhouse said that, you know, that it's certainly you should get vaccinated, but wait those 90 days or so. Sam asks, is it okay to get different COVID-19 vaccines? So, you know, we really don't know how one vaccine will interact with another. And so right now, I think that the safest thing to do is that if you start off getting one vaccine that you should complete the series with that vaccine. So if you started out with the Moderna vaccine, make sure that you finish with the Moderna vaccine. Likewise, if you started with Pfizer, that you finish your series with the Pfizer vaccine. Joe says, I had a kidney transplant at UMMC six months ago. What vaccine should I get? Joe, you should get whichever vaccine you can get whenever you can get it. I think that's the best advice that we have for now as more vaccines come out and as we finally start learning about how these vaccines work in transplant patients, those recommendations may change. But for now, probably the safest thing is to get vaccinated as soon as possible and with whatever vaccine you have available to you where you live. Dr. Neeterhouse, you touched on this question from Lisa a bit. She was asking, are there any COVID-19 vaccine trials for transplant patients? There are. There are several. At the moment, there are some trials looking at whether the vaccine generates an antibody response so it involves getting blood draws. There's also a registry study to just sort of learn about, you know, how transplant patients felt, what side effects they had after vaccines, and I'm sure there's many others out there. The thing with studies is there's usually so many that it's hard to keep track of them all. Kathy wants to know, should I get vaccinated? I think we've answered that and the answer is yes. You know, I think we feel strongly that, you know, this is a vaccine. These vaccines that have come out thus far are quite effective and from the data we have, you know, that they're safe. And so we certainly would encourage, you know, our patients to get the vaccine when they do become available. Kathy asks, if I'm on the transplant wait list, when should I get vaccinated? That's a bit more of a tricky question. I think if you're on the transplant wait list and you don't have surgery scheduled and you don't have a living donor surgery plan for you, I would go ahead and get vaccinated. And that's partly because you don't know when the transplant will happen. Also, probably your immune system is stronger now than it will be after transplant when you've had all sorts of medications for preventing transplant rejection. So probably the best time is to get vaccinated now. If you're in the process of going through living donor, then, you know, you may have to talk to your team about the best timing for that. And our final question, Beth asks, I had a liver transplant a year ago, should I get vaccinated or excuse me, she asked, when should I get vaccinated? Yeah, so I think it's similar. You know, I think that the timing of the vaccination after transplantation isn't known yet.  You know, we just don't know. You know, I think based on our experiences with other vaccines, certainly, you know, the longer you wait from the time of transplantation, the more likely you are to respond. But the dilemma is that if we wait too long, then you may lose the benefit of getting a vaccine while we're in the midst of the pandemic. And so, you know, if you're you're out from transplantation, I think you should certainly move forward and get the vaccine. I think it's for the patients that are more recently transplanted where we're just not sure whether it's best to wait one month, three months. And that's I think a discussion that just needs to happen between the patient and the provider to figure out really what is going to be the best time to get that vaccine administered. So how can viewers learn more about transplant services at the University of Maryland Medical Center? So there's tons of information on our website, which you can find at umm.edu slash transplant. Great. Well, thank you so much for your time today. We've been speaking with Dr. Silke Niederhaus and Dr. Kapil Saharia on COVID vaccine basics for transplant patients at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Thanks for watching today. If you have any additional transplant questions, please leave them in the comments below and make sure to like this video or share it with a friend or family member.


Lord of Iron, what was it like being in school and seeing the hearing on Capitol Hill? I was in high school and the hearings began. I can't remember when it came. It was high school and I remember John Hall's farm ranch in Costa Rica They had it a lot because his thing came up because it was just the craziest thing, right? He was a total American patriot like and a lot of these people are American patriots don't Like they're fanatics. They're they're crazy, right? They're genocidal maniacs, right? But Deep down in their horrors, they're they're 100% anti-communist cult, right? Not that communism is a good thing, communism is a bad thing, right? But they're so anti-communist that they're willing to commit atrocities to prevent communism or any political party from rising up as representing even socialism, right? So even though they pretend to be democracies coming from Democratic countries, they are 100% anti-Democrats, right? They don't believe in democracy. They're tyrannies, right? So when we were watching these hearings live on TV and you could see it and you know, you saw all the North Testifying, you saw Hall the the rancher in coast just rancher. It was like a he was like a what do you call it? That actor John Wayne type of character, right? Very weird, but they were They they just showed them as being very pro-American. They just went down the wrong path, right? They made mistakes. They made mistakes. The connections to Nixon, Blouse, Vietnam, George Bush senior, it never linked up, right? They cut Reagan. They they pretended that Reagan knew nothing of this, right? And Reagan may have known a little bit, but George Bush senior knew everything, right? It was just surreal. It was just surreal. I was young, but I knew the whole connection with Iran and the hostages and one thing that people have to really appreciate is that Reagan and Bush in the build-up to the elections in 1980, right? 1979, 1980, the Reagan administration, Bush senior, met with Iranian officials in France and made a deal with Iran where Iran would hold the American hostages for an extra 180 days, 190 days and not release them while Carter was president because if Carter was able to get the hostages, the American hostages released from Iran, he was guaranteed to win the elections, right? So the Reagan and Bush administration, right? They made a deal with Iran where Iran would keep the hostages for until Reagan got elected and if you recall Iran released the hostages on Reagan's inauguration where he put his hand on the Bible, right hand on the Bible and testified to God that he was hold the Constitution and all this jazz and Iran released the hostages and the deal was this. Iran, because it was a hot potato, Iran didn't want to hold the American hostages, right? It was, it was, it didn't look good for Iran, right? They put him on the sort of a geopolitical bad list around the world because they allowed American hostages to be taken in their own country, right? In hell, not being released. So United States had to really make it sweet. The Reagan-Bush administration had to make it really sweet and the deal they cut with Iran was this, that the Reagan administration would supply Iran with all the weapons that they needed, indefinitely, and that's where it connects up with the Iran Contra affair, right? They were shipping, taking money from Iran with sales of weapons to Iran and funneling it through all these black ops to be sent to black ops site operations all over the place and Iran, the Nicaragua, the Contras were just one of the places that were laundering this money, right? It goes so effing deep. It goes so deep to a level where Carter realized that he couldn't cut a deal with the Iranians to get the hostages released and they actually tried, they conducted what do you call it, an operation to free the hostages militarily, right? So they had two, I believe it was two helicopters that were flying low with US Marines going to where the hostages were being held to rescue the hostages militarily, right? Lo and behold, the Iranians shot down those helicopters. The word in the Iranian community was that Bush senior gave the flight plans to the Iranians so they knew exactly where the hostages were, what the flight plans were for the helicopters and shot them down and that's how they were able to shoot them down. So the Reagan-Bush administration gave the flight plans of Navy SEALs or whatever operative US military operation to the Iranians to make sure that Carter could not rescue the Iranian, the American hostages from Iran, guaranteeing that the Reagan-Bush administration would win the elections. This is something that I've known in the 1980s when I was in high school, when coming out of elementary school, you heard all the Iranians, family, friends of Iranians, everybody knew, everybody knew. Meanwhile, you watch TV and that's where I realized corporate Western media in elementary school, high school, I realized corporate Western media is pure garbage. Lies, lies, lies, because I could hear what was really going on and you would watch TV and the TV would spew garbage. And this is something that got confirmed, by the way, by what do you call it? Scott Ritter, right? I was watching the interview with Scott Ritter and Scott Ritter was saying, I used to believe Western media, I used to read all these papers, the Economist, New York Times, and stuff like this and then I got involved with the weapons inspections in Iraq and with the UN and I knew exactly what was going on. And this is in 1999, I think this happened. And I knew exactly what was going on. And then I would read all these newspapers and all these magazines. I was watching the news and I would read this stuff and this was completely false. Everything they were reporting was garbage. It was lies, lies, lies. And that's when Scott Ritter had an epiphany going, oh my God, Western corporate media is lying about everything. Because he knew exactly what was going on about this one thing that they were reporting, which was all bullshit.  And that was Scott Ritter's awakening, right? In 1999, I believe he said that. Me? I had the awakening in the 1980s because they were reporting about a country that I came from and I could hear the elders talking about what was really going on. Crazy. And people, to this day, right now, still watch Western corporate media, read the New York Times, read the Washington Post, read the Economist, read foreign policy, read all this stuff coming out of think tanks and stuff like this. And they think they're telling them the truth. Un-effin-believable. Un-effin-believable. Right? Unbelievable. Lark Bark on Sensor 2. Like the song from the 1980s, Lies from the Thompson Twins, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.


I'm Rebecca Ibe Ohimin Apia, a geological engineering graduate of King University, Gatnam. I hope to specialise in geotechnical engineering and engineering geology, basically solving engineering problems using geological principles, predicting failures, predicting disasters. But there are other broad and diverse aspects of geology that I've explored and would love to be working with alongside, I mean like exploration, geology, mine geology, geology and health, geology and banking, sedimentology, stratigraphy. I just wanted to know that there are a whole lot of opportunities for you in geology that you can actually exploit, so explore. Geology is an amazing programme, it's an amazing course and I'm glad that you are getting to learn about geological engineering. So come join us, solve the old problems using geological principles. Thank you.


Well thank you very much, Rory, and many thanks to the National Security College and ANU for including me in this conference. I of course have to start with the usual disclaimer that my remarks today are my own and do not represent the views of the United States government or any government agency or any other entity. Sometimes I throw my dog in there too. It is indeed a pleasure to be here this morning. It's also a great pleasure to be visiting Australia as the Alliance 21 Fellow. This fellowship is sponsored by the United States Study Center at the University of Sydney, where I'm based, the Perth U.S. Asia Center at the University of Western Australia and by the Australian and U.S. governments. As part of the fellowship each year, one Australian travels to the U.S. and one American travels to Australia to spend three months, three months in each other's country, learning more about the U.S.-Australian security relationship. The program provides, among other things, an opportunity to grow and strengthen the security relationship and study certain aspects of that relationship in more detail. This is the third year of a four-year program and I certainly hope it continues beyond next year. The fellowship has so far, and I'm just reaching the halfway point right now, allowed me to talk to and learn from some very thoughtful writers, thinkers, foreign policy analysts, academics, and government practitioners. All have been gracious to share their time and their thoughts with me, but I know that I've only scratched the surface of the complexities and depth of the Australian security relationship. Several of the people that I've had the good fortune to meet are here today, so I want to thank you for your time and hope that you will permit me to continue to call upon you for your thoughts and guidance. Rory, I put you in that category, including some very interesting discussions about Australian politics, and I thought the U.S. had a monopoly on eventful politics. In January of 2017, I completed a 36-year career in the U.S. federal government, all of which was dealing with some aspect of national security. From starting as a lawyer at the Department of Energy, moving to the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and completing my career as an Obama administration political appointee at the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. So naturally, you might be thinking, what does the Department of Energy have to do with national security? While energy security plays a significant role in national security, the Department of Energy's roots go back to the Manhattan Project and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The DOE, specifically the National Nuclear Security Administration, is the successor entity responsible for U.S. nuclear non-proliferation programs, the research and development programs that support the U.S. Navy's nuclear reactor propulsion, and the safety, security, and the reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. This conference today emphasizes the role that women can, should, and do play in all areas of national security. And it has been my privilege to participate in many aspects of national security, but with a primary focus on strategic issues, including nuclear and space policy and programs. I have seen firsthand how decision-making is more informed and more resilient when the participants are diverse. Diversity in all aspects is needed for sound decision-making. Gender, ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, and even academic disciplines make for better policy. Certainly for me, the growth in diversity, particularly the increasing number of women in national security, is gratifying. And while there is still a long way to go, particularly in getting more women at more senior levels, there has been considerable progress. Even the U.S. military, one of the most difficult places for women to be successful, has made some progress. Opening the military service academies in 1976 and the reserve officer training programs in 1972 to women was a major step in building the pipeline to senior officers. Graduates from those early classes have accomplished many firsts, including the first woman to be a vice chief of the U.S. military service, the first commander of the U.S. combatant command, and just recently the first acting commander of the U.S. Army's largest command. And yet the full scope of military positions were not open to women until 2016. So much progress has been made, but there's much more to come. The current secretary of the U.S. Air Force, who is the third woman to actually hold that position, is also a member of the United States Air Force Academy's third graduate class that included women. Women, however, remain unrepresented in all ranks in the U.S. military, but particularly in the senior ranks. Today the U.S. military is 16% women, 18% of the U.S. military officers are women, but just 8% are flag and general officers. Unlike here in Australia, we in the U.S. still wait the appointment of our first woman minister of defense. Today I would like to talk a little bit, though, about nuclear security and the challenges that we face today. So there are always two halves of this topic. Nuclear deterrence is one half, and nuclear proliferation prevention and arms control is the other half. When President Obama gave his famous speech in Prague in 2009, he emphasized the importance of both elements through, although deterrence is the part that often gets overlooked. In that speech, he said, today I stake clearly with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence, but make no mistake, as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversaries and guarantee that defense to our allies. President Obama laid out four concrete steps that the U.S. would take toward the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. And they were, reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same, negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia, and set the stage for further cuts. And seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor. Third, to achieve a global ban on nuclear testing immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty. And finally, to cut off the building blocks needed for bombs. The United States would seek a new treaty that verifiably ended the production of fissile materials intended for the use in nuclear weapons. So in 2009, the United States decided to go down a road that would reduce the nuclear threat, prevent proliferation, and secure weapons usable fissile materials. Maintain a strong, albeit smaller, nuclear weapons stockpile while providing extended nuclear deterrence to our allies, including, of course, Australia. To strengthen the nonproliferation treaty, the U.S. embarked on a series of transportation, or sorry, of transparency measures, including declassifying the total number of warheads in the U.S. stockpile and publishing, for the very first time, the nuclear posture review. Some of the previous ones have been classified. Some of the efforts were successful. The new treaty, the new strategic arms reduction treaty, New START, was entered into force with Russia, and the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security policy was reduced. And today, both the U.S. and Russia remain in compliance with that treaty. In retrospect, though, the U.S. was on the road to zero alone. Neither China nor Russia reciprocated the transparency measures, and Russia made it clear that it was not interested in a new arms control treaty beyond New START. Negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty reached an impasse, and the Republican Senate in the U.S. refused to take up the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. China made no move to ratify the treaty, and North Korea became the only state to conduct a nuclear test in this century. The 2015 Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference process failed to deliver a consensus agreement, and the U.S. determined that Russia was not in compliance with the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty, and the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives. Russia, as set out in the 2018 nuclear posture review, and I quote, may also rely on threats of limited nuclear first use, or actual first use, to coerce us, our allies, and partners in determining a conflict on terms favorable to Russia, in other words, possibly lowering the nuclear threshold. The 2018 nuclear posture review also confirmed what had already become apparent. Despite concerted U.S. efforts to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in international affairs and to negotiate reductions in the number of nuclear weapons since 2010, no potential adversary had reduced the role of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy or the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. The only bright spot was the Iran deal, although of course President Trump has now decided to abrogate that agreement, leaving the other parties to the agreement to implement it. And during this time, the situation in North Korea went from bad to worse. This past weekend's announcement that the U.S. is planning on withdrawing from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty as a counter to the Russian violations and that the New START Treaty may not be extended will no doubt further undermine regional and global stability. Unless this is a move designed to return Russia to compliance with the INF, which frankly I think is doubtful, withdrawal will mostly be a win for Russia and a lose for global security. So the question is can the U.S. and its allies get the world back on the road to zero by changing the current threat conditions? There is work that can be done and so North Korea might be a good place to start. Last year it looked as if a war on the Korean Peninsula would become a reality. With the start of U.S.-North Korea and South and North Korean discussions kicked off by President Trump and Kim Jong-un this past June, tensions have calmed substantially. While a recent poll of U.S. military personnel showed that nearly half of those polled believe that the U.S. will be drawn into a major war soon, notably only 46 percent this year as compared to 72 percent last year, seeing North Korea as the significant threat. And there have been some other hopeful signs. The hostile rhetoric on both sides has stopped, diplomatic discussions are ongoing, and we are no longer on a path to imminent war with North Korea. But the question remains, will this current love affair collapse when serious permanent detailed and verifiable commitments are sought as has happened in the past? North Korea, the U.S. and China each have their own view on what denuclearization means. Denuclearization is a term that of course is popular and attractive, but until there is consensus as to what it means and a plan to get there, it's just another talking point. There have been many attempts to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons and materials, and so far all have been failures. Even when North Korea blew up the cooling tower at the Yong Yong plutonium production reactor in 2006, a move hailed at the time as a dramatic and visually symbolic step towards dismantling its atomic arsenal and a key element of denuclearization, it turned out to be all for show. At the time the U.S. thought blowing up the cooling tower was the first step in shutting down the reactor. Although dramatic, it was just another failed effort. In 2013 North Korea announced that it was restarting the reactor, but just using a different cooling methodology. The road to denuclearization is littered with failed efforts. But what is the strategy this time and what's the desired end state? There are of course many possible outcomes, but simplistically and really just for the sake of conversation today, I've thought of four. First, in the end nothing changes. Yet another round of talks ends in failure and North Korea as it has done on many occasions in the past returns to missile a nuclear weapons testing and continues to produce nuclear materials and weapons. Second, North Korea obtains what it always has wanted, U.S. acquiescence of its status as a nuclear armed nation in exchange for some limited amount of transparency and an agreement to curtail some aspects of its nuclear weapons program, such as limitations on production of physical material. Third, North Korea, the U.S. and others in some new form of six-party talks begin a decades-long process of incremental steps, some successful, some not, on a wide variety of issues that could include nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, ballistic missiles, human rights, economic, and trade matters, other security issues, and maybe even a formal peace agreement for the peninsula. And fourth, the ultimate, North Korea is persuaded in the near term by a yet to be determined package of incentives to fully denuclearize in a verifiable fashion, relinquish all chemical and biological weapons, sign, ratify, and comply with the comprehensive test ban treaty, the chemical and biological weapons conventions, and rejoin the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. The first, status quo ante, is unfortunately the most probable, while the third, decades of talks may be the best we can hope for. On the other hand, elements of each would go a long way towards a neutral normal. So to help formulate a strategy, I have a few suggestions that might be included or one or more of the various end states. So even though the conventional wisdom is that states that give up their nuclear weapons end up like Libya and Iraq, it is possible to become a former nuclear weapons state. In August of 1991, the Soviet Union was crumbling, and there was a failed coup attempt against President Mikhail Gorbachev. Shortly after Gorbachev returned to Moscow following the coup, Senator Sam Nunn, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and my boss, visited with him. During that visit, Senator Nunn raised one of the key questions that had been on his mind, the status of the nuclear briefcase, the football, the nuclear control device in the personal possession of the head of the country. Senator Nunn wanted to know had Mikhail Gorbachev really been in command throughout the coup attempt? Did he maintain total control over the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons? Senator Nunn had met with Gorbachev on numerous early occasions, but this time Senator Nunn thought that Gorbachev's answers to these questions did not have the same ring of conviction as his statements during their earlier meetings. And that he wasn't, it seemed to Nunn, comfortable discussing the matter candidly. So after that trip, Senator Nunn concluded that the Soviet Union was in great peril. He felt that the United States needed to do everything it could to help Soviet authorities gain control and keep control over their own nuclear weapons. So when Senator Nunn returned to Washington, he sought out Richard Luger, the Senior Republican Senator for Indiana, to help him find a solution to what he believed was a very dangerous situation. The pair wrote legislation to allow DOD and eventually DOE to spend money in conjunction with Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union to destroy or secure nuclear weapons, destroy other weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, and prevent the proliferation of weapons, materials, and technical know-how. Despite a good deal of initial opposition from the Bush Administration, the Congress, and the press, the provision passed and was signed into law in December 1991, just days before the Soviet Union collapsed. Over the course of the next two decades, that program, on which I worked for a good part of my career, worked not only in Russia, but Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. It eliminated over 7,600 nuclear warheads, destroyed over 2,500 missiles, including ICBMs as well as sea-launched ballistic missiles, over 1,100 missile launchers and silos, 155 strategic bombers, and 33 nuclear submarines. The program consolidated nuclear weapons and material storage sites, designed and provided modern security for those sites, stopped the production of weapons-grade plutonium and improved nuclear weapons transportation security. It also helped destroy Russia's surviving arsenal of chemical weapons. Over 4,000 tons of chemical agent were destroyed, and it secured and redirected the Soviet chemical and biological weapons programs, which were spread across all of the countries of the former Soviet Union. Many of the involved facilities the West knew nothing about and were only discovered as part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Most importantly, it allowed Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to relinquish their nuclear weapons and join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapon states. What many may have forgotten is at the end of the Cold War, these three newly independent states became nuclear weapon states, with Ukraine being the third largest possessor of nuclear weapons in the world, behind only the US and Russia. Belarus and Kazakhstan were not far behind. So, using CTR as a model, a similar program, funded by China, Russia, the US, its allies and partners, including Australia, is a viable option for North Korea, should they agree to it. So, not only did CTR eliminate, secure, and consolidate weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, it started some jointly funded research programs, and it helped to refocus some of the scientists, engineers, and technicians who had worked in the WD programs, the WMD programs, and helped redirect them to related, but more peaceful jobs. The program was a partnership that was transparent about lasting scientific and technical relationships. CTR took decades and a few billion dollars, but it is a model that could be applied to North Korea. Even if the end result is not complete elimination of all nuclear weapons, CTR could be used to eliminate chemical and biological weapons facilities, eliminate them permanently this time, fizzle material production facilities, and improve weapon security. And there are other steps that North Korea could take. An immediate step would be to sign and ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. So, if North Korea is really serious about stopping their nuclear weapons testing program, this would be a highly visible and verifiable commitment to not test. And much better than blowing up a few tunnels. As we saw with the cooling tower, blowing things up is dramatic, but it doesn't stop the program. The U.S. and China could offer to ratify the CTBT if North Korea ratifies. It would end the ratification standoff between U.S. and China, and finally give the comprehensive test ban treaty opponents in the U.S. Senate a strong rationale for ratification. Moreover, it would bring the comprehensive test ban treaty a step closer to entry into force, as all three nations are part of the so-called annex two states that must ratify the treaty before it can enter into force. By the way, Russia and Australia are also annex two states, but both have ratified. North Korea could also be asked to adopt a transparency policy. This could include declaring the number of nuclear weapons in its inventory. The U.S., U.K. and France have all adopted a policy of transparency, declaring the total numbers of their warheads in their stockpiles. At the end of 2017, the U.S. had 3,822 warheads in its inventory and another 2,500 additional weapons that have been retired and are waiting dismantlement. Neither Russia nor China have reciprocated in this transparency measure, but if North Korea took these transparency measures, maybe Russia and China might even be more forthcoming. Under the terms of the new strategic arms reduction treaty between Russia and the U.S., both countries must declare the number of deployed offensive strategic warheads. In the most recent declarations, Russia has 1,420 and the U.S. has 1,398 deployed offensive warheads. North Korea could enter into a treaty to declare and limit its weapons and delivery systems. Such a treaty would have to be subject to rigorous inspection and verification, but it would bring some degree of stability. An additional measure of transparency will call for North Korea to declare their location and the full amount of weapons usable fissile materials, plutonium and highly enriched uranium that it has produced. Having made such declarations, it would commit to ending productions and have the U.S. and Russia as well as North Korea signal a willingness to sign a fissile material cutoff treaty. To ensure the world that any declarations were in fact true, North Korea should invite the International Atomic Energy Agency back in to inspect and verify the declared facilities and materials. Ideally, North Korea would sign an agreement with the IAEA to put the fissile material production in storage facilities under full IAEA safeguards until dismantled and agree to challenging inspections. An additional concern from the news over the weekend that the U.S. may withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty is that it may jeopardize North Korea's willingness to enter into any agreement. The U.S. has pulled out of the ABM Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement, the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Deal, and now, most likely, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. The serious question is, why would North Korea believe that any agreement in which it entered would remain in force? Back to more current things. The U.S.-Soviet Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987 and eliminated all ground-based missiles in the 500 to 550 kilometer range. The treaty reduced significant tensions in Europe at the end of the Cold War as the U.S. and Soviet Union destroyed all missile and launchers in this range. Over 2,000 missiles were destroyed. Russia has been in violation of this treaty since 2014, and despite multiple discussions refuses to admit its violation. On the other hand, when the U.S. pulls out of the treaty, which it can do with six months' notice to Russia, and the other former states of the Soviet Union that actually still remain parties to that treaty, the question is, does Russia follow or does it bite its time? Either way, a new arms race, sadly, may be the inevitable result. Unless, by chance, this threat of withdrawal is a coercive tool to get Russia to return to compliance and bring China into the treaty. If this is a goal, I hope there is a real strategy and an implementation plan hiding behind the announcement. But as early as 2011, even before Russia's violation, National Security Advisor John Bolton advocated for withdrawal from the INF. So, in his words, that the U.S. could be unconstrained in dealing with threats from China and North Korea. So when announcing the U.S. withdrawal, President Trump said the same thing and that the U.S. will have to start building these missiles. Yesterday, President Trump confirmed that he would build up. Just one problem. The U.S. doesn't have any non-compliant missiles. Although there is a small research and development program, it will take years to build and deploy this kind of ballistic and cruise missiles in meaningful numbers. Withdrawing from the INF treaty so that the U.S. could build and deploy ground-based missile systems that could target North Korea, could push them away from the table before any further discussions even ensue. North Korea announced and has been following through on its testing moratorium on nuclear weapons and missiles. And this moratorium is important, even though not permanent. But if the U.S. announces and begins a new ground-based missile development program, which includes testing, what does North Korea do? And what is China's view? It would seem logical that China would want to pressure Russia to stay in the treaty and comply so that neither it nor North Korea would have to respond to a new U.S. weapons program. And where is Russia going to, where is the U.S. going to deploy these new ground-based missiles? An already difficult situation with many current and historical missteps just got a lot more difficult. Unfortunately, the conditions do not exist today for a world without nuclear weapons. But there is progress that can be made. Collectively, nations must decide that the progress is worth the effort. And all states with nuclear weapons, not just the P-5, will have to go down this road. And nations without nuclear weapons can and should play an important role in persuading and pressuring states with weapons to reduce the number of warheads and delivery systems, comply with relevant arms control treaties, enter into new verifiable arms control treaties, strengthen the IAEA, and strengthen the non-proliferation treaty, ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty, and extend the new START treaty. Reducing global and regional tensions, respecting the sovereignty of nuclear nations and of neighboring nations, and working to reduce conflicts are actions needed to set the conditions. So I'd like to close with a thought and a quote from President Obama's Prague speech. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp. To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy and cowardly thing. That's how war begins, and that is where human progress ends. Thanks for that. That was really, I think, really compelling and in some ways pretty disturbing survey of the scene. And I know that in Australia at the moment there's quite a lot of thinking about what would, I guess, a new Australian policy framework on non-proliferation arms control and disarmament look like, bearing in mind that there may, who knows, be a change of government within the next six months. And I think particularly the Labor side of politics is always very interested in that side of things. So I suspect that voices like yours will be in demand one way or the other advising the Australian debate. We've got a couple of minutes of time if you'll allow me to take a few questions. And let's take a few questions from the floor. You've touched on INF already, which I think was going to be the hot topic. But can someone get my attention if I have a question? It's a little hard to see out the back of the room. Please don't be shy. I think we've got a great opportunity to interrogate the issues here. We've got a question at the back of the room just there. Thank you. And if you could introduce yourself to the group. I think by the end of the two days we'll all know each other pretty well. Good morning. Brooke Sharfley from the Defence Intelligence Organization. Thank you very much for those comments. That was really inspiring and it's great to see that we've had some progress in the past that we could build on for the future. I'd just like to ask you about the examples that you gave about former states where we have precedent for relinquishing nuclear weapons. And I know that in each of the Soviet examples that you gave, and I add to those also the example of South Africa, that the relinquishment of nuclear weapons had only also taken place when in conjunction with a change of government and in most cases quite a significant one. So I'd be interested in your views on whether a similar situation could only be achieved in North Korea with regime change. Do you want to answer that one right away? We'll take another question. We'll take one more. We won't let you run away from that. That is the challenging question. So okay, we'll take one more. We've got time for one more question. Please, down the front. Thank you. My name is Chantaleon Arthat from Women in International Security, also known as wise. I want to ask you what role do you see for countries like Australia and the EU European countries in this, you know, difficult situation we are in and where arms control seems to be sort of going nowhere. So very quickly on Korea, of course, there is no answer really nobody knows, but I would say it would depend. I mean, it really it really does depend on how serious the leadership in North Korea really is about denuclearization. And more importantly, what does it really mean? Is there some is there some way to take concrete steps such as signing the CTBT or or entering into some sort of limitation on its physical materials? I mean, these are all these steps that really could be taken down a road that really looked like zero. But it is. But it really is completely dependent on their commitment. And certainly in the past, the commitment hasn't been there. And there have been short starts and really long stops. So I don't think it's completely dependent. I know in those examples, it was it was a collapse of an entire country, if you will. But it wouldn't have to be. So hopefully it there's at least some progress being made. And on the arms control, I know that there's an awful lot of talk these days that arms control is dead. And it may just be in hibernation for a while. But I think where other countries can really come into play is making arms control in all types in all shapes and all varieties. Bring it back. Bring it back to the table. Bring it back to the discussion. Let the let the countries who aren't complying. Let them know that this is important. You know, sometimes I think when there isn't progress, the folks not making progress, don't hear the voices of of those who are not happy with the absence of progress. So in a constructive way, I think like Australia that has a very long history of nonproliferation activity could be very instrumental in letting in letting particularly the U.S. and others know that it is important to take some of these to take some of these steps. Look, we're we're getting a bit short of time. We take one more question if there is another burning question in the room, otherwise we'll move to morning tea. Does anybody else have a question? I have one otherwise that I just will put to you, if that's okay, which is just taking it further on the the INF Treaty. I think that's, you know, obvious hot topic. You set out a kind of a road map both in terms of engaging North Korea that also I think seeking to re-engage the nuclear powers on a road map to reducing nuclear dangers in a whole range of areas that requires, you know, a certain degree of predictability and maybe not strategic trust, but certainly understanding among the leaderships that we're not seeing to see at the moment. I guess, do you see, what prospects do you see for the U.S. to find a way to to work with others like China? Because I think in this region we are very, you know, interested in and concerned about the rise of China to either find some sort of alternative arrangement or find some kind of acceptance of the fact that perhaps, you know, perhaps that treaty's time is done. Just provoking you a little bit. So, you know, it is it is a difficult question. The interesting thing is Russia has at least very recently made some initial overtures that it might be willing to discuss an extension of the New START Treaty. So the New START Treaty by its terms allows a five-year extension without any further ratification actions. In other words, the two leaders just have to agree to go forward to that five-year extension. So that extending the New START Treaty would really contribute to the stability of both the U.S. and Russia. It sets caps on deployed strategic warheads on deployed and total delivery systems. It provides a lot of transparency into new systems and inspection methodologies. So it's a very good treaty for stability. The reason I bring this up is that if the discussion about withdrawing from the INF is more of a discussion, a coercive discussion to try and get Russia back in or back into compliance, then those two things, I think, can actually be related in terms of the China thing. So there's probably one more round of bilateral discussions with the U.S. and Russia on total reductions in stockpiles just because the U.S. and Russia have so many more warheads than does China. But the second piece of this is if the INF Treaty does remain in force, then they're and Russia and the U.S. are serious about either extending the New START Treaty and not pulling out of the INF, because frankly, I think there's a linkage between these. Then maybe together they can go to a second round of reductions and then go to China on the nuclear warhead side. And if the INF is brought back to life again, if you will, I know there has been some interest in multilateralizing that treaty, and that would also be something that could then start to have discussions with China. But the two of them, I think, really go hand in hand. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for that. I think there's a lot more ground we could cover, but time is short. So could you please now join me in thanking our speaker, Madeleine Creighton.