Christy, is there a lag when it tells us that it's live and when it actually goes live? There it is, a little bit of a lag, but you are live now. Okay. This is a meeting of Senate appropriations. We are continuing our work on the administration's fiscal 21 restatement budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. Included in the governor's budget was a proposal to appropriate $2 million for a stimulus equity benefit that would be paid to individuals working or their children in Vermont who were not eligible for the federal benefit. I believe that I can see the icon that Susanna Davis is here and now we have our video as well. The first place to start is to have you give us a presentation of the proposal. We know that there's been some shifting sands in terms of the cost analysis and the number of individuals who would have estimated to qualify. If you could bring us up to date, that would be very helpful in terms of the proposal and any data in terms of how the administration came forward with the original $2 million and now what we understand is estimated to be $5.3 million. So thank you for being here today, Susanna. Well, thank you for having me. This proposal, I actually just sent over a one pager that may be of use to you. A couple of you may have seen it already. It is very brief at walking you through the purpose of this proposal, the numbers involved and the estimated number of people who would benefit from this proposal. So I'll be brief because I find that this conversation is most fruitful when it's question-driven. So the proposal on the table is to create a state-level relief fund for people who were excluded from receiving CARES Act economic stimulus payments for reasons of their or someone else's immigration status. We are looking at this because the pandemic has impacted absolutely everybody. Regardless of the person's legal status, regardless of any other factor, everybody has been hit by this and yet it's become very clear that the federal government has chosen to surgically exclude certain people because of policies out of Washington from being able to recover and to be sustained economically. So the state and a number of other jurisdictions have decided that it's our duty to pick up where the federal government fell short and this is one way to do so. So this would provide payments to eligible adults of $1,200 and eligible children of $500, which is the same numbers used in the CARES Act. To anybody who was excluded from CARES Act payments due to immigration status, a note is that this does not only impact people who are immigrants in this country, it also impacts people who are U.S. citizens who may have been born here and I'll get into that in a moment. This is going to impact nationally 8.2 million U.S. citizens. It impacts children regardless of the child's immigration status and it impacts a lot of people who have really done nothing wrong other than not have a social security number, which is legal sometimes. So there's some technical information regarding exactly how the CARES Act was able to exclude these people. They used SSN, the Social Security Number, as a proxy for immigration status. The problem is there are lots of people who are legally present in the country who don't have social security numbers and so it ends up ensnaring legal immigrants and people who are affiliated with anyone who doesn't have a social security number. And if we could just get a quick scroll on this document just to make sure that I haven't missed anything else. Scroll it down. Chrissy, are you the one controlling the screen? I am. Was it not scrolling? No, we only got partway through the chart that had the numbers. How about that? Can you see that? Okay. So we got partway through, so basically what we have is an estimated universe of 5,000 identified in terms of what bucket, so to speak, that those individuals would fall in. Okay. So by our best estimates, this proposal, we would have an estimated up to 1,000 eligible children in Vermont and up to 4,000 eligible adults in Vermont. Those 4,000 eligible adults include persons who are undocumented in the US who work in dairy, persons who are undocumented in the US who work outside of dairy, persons who are legally present in the US but who have no social security number, and persons who are citizens and legal permanent residents, that's green card holders, which totals the 5,000 Vermonters. I would like to say, and this gets at that question of 2 million versus 5.3 million, this 5,000 Vermonters is our top level estimate of who exists in the state who could be eligible. Not only that, it assumes, well, the 5.3 million dollars would represent $1,200 payments to all 4,000 adults and $500 payments to all 1,000 children, which supposes two things. Number one, that our upper numbers are V numbers, and number two, that every eligible person will present for these funds. So as we consider the funding amount, I know that was a big question that was swirling around, well, is it two or is it 5.3? 5.3 really is what we see as the likely ceiling. We began the proposal at 2 million to begin this conversation. Unfortunately, this is a population that is often difficult to identify and quantify. So we don't know if 2 million is enough or too much or exactly the right amount. Yes, excuse me. You can't see it, but I have a question from a committee member, Senator Ash. Senator Ash. Thank you. And I think my question is consistent with where you're at here on this. Because we're at people who are not in the legislature or the administration are, they're advocating for 5.3 million now based on these numbers. The budget director has said 2 million now, and if we have to do more during budget adjustment because people, we get closer to the ceiling in terms of take-up rates, we'll deal with it then, with I think an implicit commitment that we'll come up with the funds then. And it puts us in the awkward position right now as we do the budget for the next three quarters of getting pressure from advocates to do all 5.3 million now, which means cutting in the governor's budget 3.3 million from something else that hasn't been identified or taking the budget director's position, which is just do the 2 million now with a commitment. We'll figure it out in budget adjustment if the numbers rise up higher. So I'm just, I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I'm looking for clarity about what the request is right now. Not what we think the grand total might be between now and budget adjustment. Also, if I could just add to that what isn't clear from that response back from the commissioner was, if the 2 million, it turns out to be insufficient, then would the other applicants have to wait until a budget adjustment to provide the additional funding, which wasn't really clear. In other words, are we going to start a program up? And then if the funds turn out not to be sufficient, then say to the other applicants, wait until we appropriate more money through a budget adjustment. Maybe that's getting into a level of detail that we need to ask. And I don't know if commissioner Greshan is on or not. Maybe that's, but you can understand the dilemma from a budgeting perspective in terms of that response. Of course, yes. And to complicate the matter further, I would point out that your colleagues in the house just voted out this bill from committee with the number of $5 million, which would be the 2 million that's proposed from the general fund and which would add 3 million from a prior allocation that has been unused for a couple of years. That's the change program. I understand. Yes, actually that was an appropriation that was done by this committee and it was to use the tobacco settlement money as a way of doing some system overhaul to better serve Vermont children who are in the court system as a result of abuse, neglect. And my understanding is that there has been a workgroup and obvious and had presented a spending plan for some of the money that had been allocated. So I guess then the house considered the original purpose of the funds and has decided to divert the funds for the improving our child welfare system to be the backup funding for this particular benefit. Correct. With a reversion back to that program for any unused portion of the funds. All right. Well, we have to have some discussion on that. I mean, because I believe that until a kid in child custody dies and then they're going to say, why did you put money into reforming the system? But that's not your issues, Susanna, to answer. Sorry. As a matter of fact, I believe the communication that we got from the council was to go to reserves. So to fund the balance of this benefit. I believe that was the document that you provided to us on behalf of the council that that was the proposal in that document was to use. I'm sorry. Well, we had a document that was sent to us. Stephanie Barrett put it up and it was, it was, I think it was your testimony on behalf of the council. It wasn't from you as an individual basis that recommended the 5.3 and recommended that the additional funding should come from reserves. That's my recollection of that document. Obviously, the house, if what you're saying is their decision, rather than providing that backup funding from reserves has opted to redirect the money to improve our child welfare system to fund the benefit. So that's not your issue. It's just trying to understand the funding stream for what is being proposed. Okay. All right. I think that is important for the committee. Senator Sears, you've got your hand up and you're muted. Well, I want to unmute. I want to say that, you know, going from 2 million to 5 million is a big jump out of funding, but the funding of it is not the issue right this minute. It's whether or not we should do this. And I'm glad that the governor of the state of Vermont and whomever else in the administration has pushed this, has done this. And I just want to be on record with that because I think so many states are moving in a different direction when it comes to hoping folks who are working on our farms and other places, our hotels, whatever. So I'm pleased that we're actually doing this. It might sound like we're just quibbling over where did the money come from? But I think the important thing is that we're moving forward with this. I think the committee can figure out where the money comes. Okay. Other comments? I know that our Senate Ag Committee very early on had a lot of discussion around funding benefits. So, Senator Ash? Can we go back to my question just about what the administration is hoping we'll do right now? Two million and then sort of commit that we'll do more through budget adjustment if needed or asking for 5.3 or 5, whatever. What's the actual ask? It'll be a disappointing answer from me, but I think the actual ask is just whatever fills the need. The administration is committed to filling the need. So if that's greater than two, then we can come back for budget adjustment and commit more. I suppose the question is, do we tie up that money on the front end without knowing whether we'll need the full 5? Or do we allocate, and I apologize for any background noise. This is the moment when a truck decides to pass by and linger. Or do we start with an estimate and raise it as needed? And I don't really know that that's for me to say, but I would just urge the committee that if we do not, if we fund it at a lower number, that we in good faith consider returning if the need ends up being greater than that when it comes to budget adjustment time. I think, so at this point, the administration has not taken a position on the bill that the House seems to have developed, and we'll be passing out as we understand a separate bill from the budget. That's my understanding that that was their decision, was to take this particular proposal and move it forward as a separate bill. I guess we will have to ask we will ask the administration in either Secretary Young to let us know if they prefer doing what the House has decided to do, and then we can talk about obviously the funding behind it, or the first communication which was do the 2 million and we'll deal with it in budget adjustment. So we which is the current the latest communication that we have from from the agency of administration. So we need we we need to get clarification and appreciate your honesty that that is a position that it's got to be taken by by the secretary.  Yeah, thanks. I have a question that kind of calls for some speculation on your part, and I apologize for that, but but you're closer to the you've been monitoring this more more closely than this committee has. I'm worried about the money running out if we go to the Budget Appropriations Act route, the money running out and someone needing the money and being told yeah well it's November maybe and the Budget Adjustment Act get started in January gets passed sometime after that.  I understand we don't know right now, but we don't know until until people ask. Well, I'll let I'll let Susanna answer that if she feels comfortable. I think it's going to be a matter of timing, and I suspect you won't know around the adequacy of the money when we pass and when we adjourn September 25. If it were a CRF eligible expenditure, we're going to have a mechanism to deal with this, but we're talking about general fund which which creates a very different timing environment, and maybe that's why the House took the the position it did, but you're correct budget adjustment even under the best of circumstances doesn't get passed till February. Yeah, and that could that could end up as being a need unmet, not delayed, but really unmet. And these folks have good reason a lot of them have good reason to keep a low profile. So I understand why we don't have the information. So why don't we take advantage of Susanna's understanding, and that is once we do this appropriation, obviously there's been the whole take up issue has been a topic of discussion because so many individuals are apprehensive about connecting with government or what that might mean in terms of their own security or the risk involved. So how do you envision this payment being administered and what entity of government would do that and how do you because we don't know it's not like you've got the social security number so how do you envision administering the benefit. So, to the question of how do we estimate that that we'll be able to administer the program to enough people if we fund it at less than 5.3 million. No, no, I'm just in general, in general. Yes, yes. So just in general on the numbers one thing that we wanted to one of the one of the recommendations that I had was that we earmark the portion that we assume could go to eligible children for those eligible children. So as an example, if we were to fund this had an amount of $2 million that first $500,000 would be earmarked for children based on the upper number of how many children we believe are in Vermont who could be eligible. That leaves $1.5 million remaining for the adults. At payments of $1,200 that serves about 1,250 adults out of the up to 4,000. Now of course that assumes that there are 1,000 eligible children and that applications will be filed on all their behalf in Vermont. If that's not true then of course that would spill over into the $1.5 million for the adults, which of course is already based on an estimate of how many adults we think there are. So it is tricky and I think that we won't know, particularly I think when applications first open it will likely be a slower trickle because a lot of people might be waiting to see what happens to others who apply for this program. Is it going to be easy? Is it going to be invasive? Are they going to be identified and have targets put on their, larger targets put on their backs? So I think we may have a few people initially and then when they have successful results then we may get a bit of a cascade of people who are watching to see. Now to the other question from Senator Kitchell about trust and administration and delivery, trust is going to be a huge, huge factor here. We could put $5 million, we could put $10 million into this fund, but if nobody trusts us enough to come forward with it then the fund is useless, right? And so established, we already have established contacts with a lot of these groups just through our work in different agencies and government and what's going to be absolutely critical here is partnering with service providers and community groups on the ground who have even more intimate contacts with these populations. That means groups like migrant justice, that means groups like AALV, that means groups who are on the ground working with populations who have experienced challenges with immigration or ancillary issues. So it's going to be a huge need for partnership. There's been a lot of discussion in the other chamber about which agency or department should be handling it and I suppose I should say just as a baseline, whichever agency is finally determined to administer this program, I intend to play a very direct role and have a hand in its administration. So that means AOA is necessarily going to be involved because that's where my role sits. And there was a lot of conversation about having AHS be involved as well because of the nature of the agency work, because of the capacity that it has to administer grants and because of the public reception that it often receives from families with whom it interacts. So the thinking on the table is that the agency administration mostly via me would interact most likely with the agency of human services and would work with any partner organizations on the ground to promote and assist in the administration of this program. We have a statewide network of community action agencies that have been in place for a long time serving. And I'm just one, in terms of a structure outside of state government that might be viewed as more neutral, that has some presence. Has that been discussed or considered? Well, I guess that would be part of your discussion with the agency because they have relationships with the community action agencies. But I was just wondering whether that structure was under consideration. It's certainly an option and I think every suggestion that we get would be of great use and figuring out how to do this in a way that maximizes our reach to people is going to be really key. So I would say that and any other positive proposals that can be shared, we'd be extremely happy to include them. Okay, question. Senator Ash? I don't know if you guys have imagined the mechanism to get the assuming this passes, the mechanism to get the money to the individual knowing that federal law enforcement agencies have frequently staked out courthouses and things to try to scoop people up when they go in with parking tickets. Is there a determined effort to make sure this isn't setting people up to especially between now and November to get scooped up by agencies at the direction of the president versus the governor? Absolutely. Privacy is a huge consideration here because for a lot of people, the ability to remain invisible or unnoticed is worth more than $1,200. And so you want to be able to help people not ask them to make that kind of trade off. That means a couple of things. One, it means creating an application process that is minimally invasive. Our questions should only be as probative as necessary in order for us to be able to pay a person. And then second, in terms of the actual format, I suppose that the money would take, you know, there were a lot of conversations about well, should we issue it as a card, maybe it could be a gift card or an UT card or a check or cash and a lot of concerns surrounding that. And really the goal, first of all, I would say that we have at least, well, no, up to, no, no, no, up to at least a thousand people who are either citizens, legal permanent resident, that's being card holders, or people who are lawfully here with no SSN, which means those considerations are a little bit low, not so much of an issue for them, because they tend to be banked and they tend not to have the same issues with receiving money above board from the state. So there's a certain population that we're not necessarily concerned about. And the others, we would need to develop a mechanism to figure out what's the best and most discreet and safest way to deliver funds to those folks. And for some, that might mean a check. And for some, we'd have to get created. And is the language that's been brought forward, how does it treat public records as it relates to the individuals and the payments themselves? And are you talking about audits, is fiscal audits? To make sure that it's not an end-around way for federal agencies to track people down? Yes, there is language that states that identifying information is to be kept confidential. And that includes everything from names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, biometric information, and many other identifying factors. And this is language that was largely modeled on the driver privilege card statute. Okay. Well, some of us were involved in that, getting that passed. Other questions, Senator Ash, any more from you? I'm just trying to look at my screen here. No, I know that there will be people watching. And this video after the fact, and I just hope that, you know, there's an appreciation that there's a broad desire to do this. The way we pay for it in terms of phases sounds almost cold to the issue itself. But people should not miss that to take 3 million out of fixing our child welfare system. When just two years ago, we were under a lot of pressure because of real challenges that system was under to put funds there to bolster it back up. And, you know, taking money that was there to solve one crisis to help address another equity issue can come back to haunt us. So, you know, finding the right amount of funds, of course, is important. Where you get the money from is also important. And that's where we may see this somewhat differently in terms of the source of funding, to be honest. And maybe it's because that initiative came out of appropriations, as well as the... A member of the public should say, do we want to take money that might put kids at risk in order to provide equitable funding to people who are part of the backbone of our, you know, workforce? And they would probably say no. They want the money for it. But they would not, if they knew where the source was, they would not be so supportive. So, our job is to find one that doesn't put kids at risk in order to do this other good thing. And I agree. I think that's where we're going to come down. I'm just saying that the House decision to use that funding source really comes back to a priority that we established. And we're going to have to make that determination around how the level of funding and how... And what is the source of funding? Because I will remind the committee, we also have a report coming from the University of Vermont because Vermont as a state brings more children into custody of the state, where an outlier in terms of the number of children who end up in the custody of the state, which is really concerning for many of us, that we seem to be so different than all the states around, particularly when we're making... From our perspective, we feel we're making significant investments in support and services to families. So, this... The decision of the House, and that's nothing to do with you, Susanna, please. I just want to make it clear what we're deliberating here is if we move forward and at a higher level, what does that mean and how we sort that out. And our ultimate decision may not be what is in the bill as it's sent over to us. So, that's just more for our committee discussion at this point. I see I have two blue hands. So, could somebody raise their hand? Alice, are you one? Alice and then Senator Sears. So, I'm just wondering if we know at this point how much money is in the fund that this would come out of? That's one question. And the other is, would there be an ongoing discussion in our committee as to... If we didn't go with that money right now to giving people a lesser amount of money now and then something later when in budget adjustment? In other words, the amount to get them up to 1200, that kind of thing. Is that something we would decide in our committee? I think that could be an option, but I think what we're going to be getting from the House is the full benefit and make it comparable to the federal benefit for that equity issue that has been raised. Okay. And do we know the amount of money in the fund? In terms of the, for the Chins, the Child Welfare, Stephanie knows that very well. Is there even enough money there to do it? There is. Okay. Stephanie, do you want to answer Senator Nick's question? Yeah.  And the amount of money out of that $7 million that you have authorized is 1.25. So there's, you know, just shy of $6 million left in that. Okay. And we also have a plan that was provided to us by the Chins Working Group in terms of a recommendation around how some of that money would be spent. I think Judicial Masters were part of that home visitation and so forth. So that committee has been working in terms of how those dollars could be applied to serve our children in the Child Welfare system and those families better. Senator Sears. Well, I caught myself dual-tasking for a few minutes there, so this has already been discussed. In talking with people, it's clear to me that if there is another stimulus package that comes from the federal government, it will include another stimulus payment to the Monters, which I would assume once we've set this precedent that we would be looking at in budget adjustment another $5 million or like number will have a better sense of what the number is. But I think if, so I would say that it would be, I don't know how you turn this picket off once you've opened it, if there is another stimulus to the Monters from the feds. No, I would be very concerned about putting off a portion of this to the Budget Adjustment Act. Okay. The, as we know with the different funding sources and the Senate Ag Committee confronted this early on, is this is not a permissible use. And where we have money is CRF, federal dollars. Right. And our budget in 21, we've got that revenue loss of about $100. But I do remain hopeful that Congress and even the President would come up with a new package of help to people in the United States, which would include more money for Monters, but will also include another stimulus, a jack of $1,200. Actually, my wife and I pretty much spent ours in anticipation. So I just want to point out that when that, if that comes, one would expect that we should do the same again. So we'll be looking at another appropriation. Whoever's here, I mean, I don't know, I might not be here. Oh, well, okay, that that that is an argument to move forward, do it and do it at the same amount. The larger issue is the extent to which the State General Fund has the capacity to do additional payments is a potential one out there. And it creates an expectation, I guess, is what you're saying. I'm saying I don't know how you would not do it. I don't know how we're funding it at this point. I know, I don't know how, but I'm not even, I don't like the funding source that the House is using. So that is something we're going to have, we're going to make some decisions on that because it isn't the only funding source that would be permissible. So we may have a difference of opinion in terms of the importance of continuing to proceed with improving the way we serve children at risk of neglect and abuse. So, but then that gets us to, you know, where do we go? And is it reserves? Is it some other way? We free up General Fund? Don't know that as of now, but I think that's going to be right there as a committee that we're going to have to consider. Senator McCormick. Thanks, but the fact that we're even talking about money that had been allocated for for children in jeopardy, I take from that that even though it's been appropriated, it hasn't been spent. We haven't had the cause to spend it. Is that correct? What I'm saying is that there's been a working group to put forward proposals that would move us forward toward that improved system. And we have a spend they submitted in just as we left in March, a proposal that would use some of that money for the judicial masters, which was viewed as really important in getting timely decisions and dealing with the delays in the court system, home visiting models that have been proven effective in working with families to prevent the need for children coming into custody. And then we've got another report that's coming out of the University of Vermont looking at cases to get a better understanding as to why Vermont practices are bringing children into state custody at a much higher rate than any others. So there is work underway in terms of how that money that's been appropriated and it's and a plan has been presented to us as to what would be the next steps and the next use of those resources to improve the system. So this is not an unused fund. No. This is a competing. Yeah. Yeah. That's important. I think one way or another, though, that we've got to air on the side of not leaving people out in the cold and saying, well, hold your breath till February. And so you're reaffirming Senator Sears' comment about moving it forward and following up. Well, I just, I'd like to, I understand that Senator McCormick and Sears' argument and I know the activist politics right now on the House side have been persuasive to put all the money in, even if it's not all going to be needed. But we don't always put all the money on the table for the maximum potential utilization. And I think recent actions on using federal care funds for business relief as an example, where we wanted to see how it went before we decided how to use the remaining funds. So I say that only because I'm very worried about where this money is going to have to come from. And it's not about the commitment. It's about the trade off. And everyone loves the spending side. And we have an administration that doesn't want to put another penny on the table, which means it's going to compete with something else. We could just as easily put a microcharge on milk. People have been profiting off of this, off of many of these workers, not all of them, but a portion of them, the 1250 or 1000 workers that are on that spreadsheet, have them pick up some of the cost where they've benefited from these workers all these years. But I don't suspect we're going to see that. Other comments, Senator Westman, did I? I'd like to say that I'm a little concerned about putting all the money here when we aren't sure how many people are going to avail themselves of the program. And this is a very different conversation than what's gone on nationally. This is a conversation of everybody saying, in the end, we want to get to the place where everybody gets their 1,200 and a 500. And that's a very different conversation than the arguments of exclusion that have been going on at the federal level. And what I would say to my colleagues is, if you put the full amount in and there's money left over in the pot and there's some new benefit that comes along, that money will be seen as money as a target to make sure that we have a pot of money to start a new program. Well, I think we can be careful about if when we make a final decision of writing that language, and maybe you do it as contingent and that it's only as needed or something. So it's very clear that if we, depending on the source, if we use reserves, then if you only need 2.3, then it's very clear that that's all that's being obligated. But I understand that. But what I am saying is, if you put it in a pot, which it sounds like the house is doing at $5 million, if we spend $3 million on this and there's two sitting there, they're going to see this as stealing the money away from these groups. If you take it out of that pot, come January. And I'm fully committed to making sure that they get this. That we fund the benefit. But okay. All right. Senator McCormick, you have your hand up again. I have two blue hands on my screen. So one is Senator McCormick. Is there a second? Yeah, it's probably mine that I didn't lower. Okay. All right. Essentially, if we appropriate the money, and then it turns out we don't need it, but we appropriate it too much, it's not going to burn a hole in our pocket. We would then have it for other things. Or we would have language that would revert it back if it came to reverse or whatever. We can deal. But it's an issue that we need to be conscious about, as we're deliberating this. Might I ask joint fiscal folk who might know what the other body is doing? Are they voting this bill out ahead of the budget? I believe they are. They voted it out of House of Probes today. So it's actually going on the calendar, notice calendar then. I believe so. Okay. All right. All right. Other questions of Susanna while she's here? I have a question totally unrelated to this. And that has to do. Are you a member of ICAR? No. And that ICAR is the administrative group that looks at regulations and proposed rules. And the reason that I ask is I believe in Kentucky, they have a system where they're really trying to look at when a law is being developed or regulation to have a presence in terms of is there some bias here? Is it doesn't have some negative impact that might not be even thought about and to bring the perspective of why your office was created to that process as either statute or legislation is being drafted or the administration is proposing a regulation? So I'm just wondering. That's why I was asking if you were currently a member of ICAR, because it seems like the perspective of your office and that you would bring could be helpful as we're thinking about regulations that have the force of law. So I just want to let you know, I think I'm going to be recommending that you be part of that review process so that we can get the full benefit of your perspective. Thank you for that. Yes, what you're talking about is an equity impact assessment. They are so tremendously important. They are gaining currency around the country and different jurisdictions and State of Vermont has developed one and we are working to finalize it and implement it, not just in the executive agencies, but with hope with our friends in the legislature and in the judiciary as well and it would be an effort to make sure that in the same way that we consider the fiscal impact or the operational impact or what have you of a particular measure that we're also considering whether it's going to have a disparate impact on populations, especially historically marginalized groups. So thank you for that. We are very big on wanting to do that analysis and I hope that that's something that we can roll out really quickly. I will say that the State of Vermont is a member of GAIR which is the local and state government alliance on race and equity and we did take advantage of that membership and the benefits that it provides to help inform the equity impact assessment that we have developed. Oh, great. So we are incorporating best practices into the development of that policy. Great. Well, that's good information for us to have. I don't know, I'll have to check on it. I don't know if ICAR membership is, I think it's done administratively. I don't think it's prescribed in statute. So it just seems like that would be your presence on that review committee could be very beneficial and particularly as you're talking about the equity impact assessment. So great. Other questions of Susanna or comments while we are lucky enough to have her with us today? Doesn't have to be related necessarily to this but Bill? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate your coming and so if you find yourself a member of ICAR don't be surprised. Okay, excellent. Thank you all very much for having me and of course I remain available to you if you have follow-up or other questions. If you find yourself being a member of ICAR, leave the room. Thank you. Tim, I know regulations are dry but sometimes they can really have impact that we don't even think about. There were some who were born to lead, others born to follow, others born to be on ICAR. Listen, I have to say one of my favorite cases from school was a case that hinged on the presence and the meaning of a semicolon. So people like me like that kind of thing. Oh my goodness, you're going to get McCormick and his comma, right? All right. Thank you very much for being with us today and we will be getting the bill over then from the house and obviously we were originally thinking it was part of the budget but moving separately. So we'll go back to our budget work then. Thank you very much, Azana. Thank you. Next on and I don't know.


A 61-year-old dearwood man charged with running over an 85-year-old woman last June appeared in Ithaca in, excuse me, Aiken County Court today. Timothy Paul Coastal is charged with a misdemeanor for careless driving. Margaret Ann Johnson was fatally struck by a vehicle near her mailbox just east of Aiken on Highway 47 on June 10th of last year. Coastal pleaded not guilty today. Many of Johnson's family and friends were at the arraignment hoping to get some closure. I think personally it's not hard to hard to see them. You know it's my mom would be here and she's not here and it's a it's a process for us a closure part and we think that the charges are light. Coastal's pretrial hearing is set for October 10th. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Twitter is crafted by humans for humans. Software is crafted by humans for humans. Our calling, our purpose as craftspeople is to create an experience for an audience. We take very different elements, code, databases, graphics, and we weave them together into a cohesive whole, a harmony and illusion. When I log onto Twitter and I tweet something, I may literally be typing characters into a keyboard having those characters appear in a text field, moving my mouse and clicking a button, but that's not what my brain experiences. To my brain, I'm just talking to my friends or announcing something to the world. The technicalities behind Twitter become invisible, all hidden behind the illusion of the user experience. I didn't start off in software. I started off in the world of theater, creating productions intended to make people laugh, to make them cry, to show them something familiar in a new way, to showcase the universal human experience. It wasn't until I began doing software professionally that I realized how similar these two worlds are. The creative process that goes into creating a theater production is identical to the creative process that goes into crafting a software application. Theater is where I learned my greatest lessons on software development. It's where I learned to work with a group of passionate people to create something extraordinary. It's where I was empowered to create experiences that can change a business, an industry, a society, even the world itself. I want to share these lessons with you. I want to empower you. I divided this presentation into five acts. Each act will highlight a lesson I learned in theater and how it applies to software. Let's start with Act One, Vision. Many software applications try to pack in as much functionality as possible. Want email and social networking? We've got it. Want server management and hardware purchasing? We've got it. Want the kitchen sink? We've got that, too. These applications do many things somewhat okay and nothing very well. In striving to be useful for everything, they become desired for nothing. It's easy to fall into this trap in a theater production, too. A director might say, let's add a musical number to a production of Hamlet. A producer might say, I saw Peter Pan last week and the flying was awesome. Let's make Henry the fifth fly. These may sound like exaggerations, but I've both seen and worked on productions that were not very far off. Before a role is cast, before a line of dialogue is rehearsed, before any costumes have been designed, it's critical to establish a clear vision. This vision must answer one question. What experience do I want to give my audience? In software, we can amend this slightly to what experience do I want to give my users? Apple does this brilliantly. Their vision is it just works. This drives everything, from their hardware, to their software, to their mobile applications. I want to give you an example on a smaller scale, though. A few months ago, I began working on an application I'm calling the wedding gift coordinator. My vision for the application was this. Wedding guests will have an easy, intuitive way to find other guests to split gift costs with. This application will take stress away from the process of finding a gift for a wedding. This vision is not requirements. It's not specifications. It's simply two to three sentences that say what your application is supposed to do. Know thyself is a phrase from ancient Greece that I think applies well to defining your vision. Know your app. Know what it does. Know what experience it needs to provide. Let this drive everything about your development. Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, to thine own self, be true. With everything, from your user interface, to your databases, to your models, to your views, controllers, to your vision, be true. If anything drives the software industry forward, other than caffeine, it is ambition. So many of us have a drive to create applications that do things better and faster than what has come before, to push the industry to new heights. This is essential. However, with any software application, as well as any theater production, there are limits. Act two. In my years in the theater, I had to say no many, many times. This was sometimes because of people constraints, budget constraints, time constraints. Once it was the laws of gravity, I found there's an art to saying no. And that art comes in three parts. I once served as technical coordinator for a director who had very little theater experience. In our first meeting, she told me she absolutely needed 18 spotlights. I had to tell her no after I got over my initial shock. And I did so using three parts. Part one is no. I cannot give you 18 spotlights. It's stating the limit clearly, making clear that no amount of arguing or convincing is going to change it. Part two is explaining why. We don't own 18 spotlights. Even if we did, the light from a spotlight is very harsh. If we've shown 18 of those on stage, it would blind not only the performers but the audience as well. Part three, instead, this is where you put a positive spin on it, where you present an alternative. I can give you two spotlights along with some stationary lights on stage. In his book, The Clean Coder, Robert C. Martin, also known as Uncle Bob, gives the example of a manager coming to an engineer saying he absolutely needs a login page done by tomorrow. She also tells him no, and I found the way she tells him no fits well into these three parts. Part one, no. I cannot give you the login page tomorrow. Part two, why? It's 10 days worth of work. The original estimates may have said three days, but new people got the requirements. Part three, instead, I can give you a mock-up of the login page. You'll be able to enter in a username, password, click a button, and be logged on to something that kind of looks like their system. The key in both these examples is finding intent. What is it we're trying to get done here, and what can I provide with the resources that I have? It took some conversation, but in the case of the 18 spotlights, all the director was really looking for was some sort of dramatic lighting effect on her actors. I could give her that, just not in the way she thought I would have to. In the case of the login page, all the manager was really looking for was something he could demo to a client the next day. The engineer could give him that, just not in the way he thought she would have to.  They simply don't understand the limits that are involved and don't understand there is a way for you to give them what they want, just not in the way they expect. The key is to communicate. It may take some conversation, but when we communicate, we can still create extraordinary things, even within limits. Act three, casting. Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes an ensemble to put on a theater production or create a software application. One of the things I love most about both the world of theater and the world of software is that having an eccentric personality is not only tolerated, it's expected. The key is figuring out how to create a team that balances these personalities. As programmers, we're used to a world of defined limits with reasonably predictable outcomes. Humans don't work this way, though. We're organic, squishy, emotional human beings. It can be hard to figure out how to put together a team of humans that will work well together. When I'm casting a show, I look for whether someone is right for the part. There is a core technical competency that needs to be met. If I'm casting a dancing show, I want the lead dancer to have a background in dance to be able to execute complex choreography. Once this core technical competency is met, however, the most important question to answer is, can I work with this person? Will this person just get the job done, or will they lift the rest of the team up to new heights? In software recruiting, we do the same thing, but we call it being right for the team. Extraordinary experiences are crafted by passionate and effective teams. Teams with a sense of trust, with personalities that are different enough to have a diversity of opinion, but not in a way that clashes. But what about a situation where the only person who has the technical competency I need has a difficult personality? In the world of theater, we refer to personalities like this as divas. This term applies to both men and women, by the way. In software, we experience the same thing, but we generally refer to these personalities as ninjas and rock stars. So when would you work with a diva? Marlon Brando, the film actor, was notorious for being extremely difficult to work with. Yet because he could produce such mesmerizing performances, many actors were willing to put out with his antics. You work with a diva when the contribution they bring to your production or software application is greater than the maintenance cost of keeping them happy. An actor or actress might demand tea from a certain island in the South Pacific, but is able to produce magnificent performances. I may be willing to make some accommodations. An engineer might demand energy drinks that can only be imported from Germany, yet be able to produce mind-blowing and well-written code. I may be willing to make accommodations. There are things I will say no to, probably using the three-part method that I outlined before. But to keep someone happy while they're doing work, to help them work effectively, I'm willing to make some accommodations. I want to make clear, however, that no amount of talent justifies certain behaviors. No amount of talent is worth abuse, whether physical, verbal, or emotional, harassment of any kind, or a lowering of your team's morale. The biggest danger to bringing a diva on your team is that tending to the diva can distract you from tending to the rest of your team. No matter how much talent one person has, experiences, extraordinary experiences, are created by teams. Your priority needs to be your team as a whole. Act four, rehearsal. The real creation of a theater production comes in rehearsals. Flawless execution depends upon relentless rehearsal. In early rehearsals, it's common to break a show down into individual scenes, individual pieces, individual units, and experiment to play with the lines of dialogue or delivered, to play with the movement, with the flow. This is essential. A show is the sum of its parts. Each part needs to be strong and stand on its own for the show to be strong. In software, we do something similar with unit tests. We use these to break or code down into modules where we can develop and explore and experiment with new ways of doing things. This is also essential. A software application is the sum of its parts. Like a theater production, every part needs to be strong and stand on its own for a software application to be strong. A theater production that only rehearses individual scenes, however, is not a full production. My senior year in college, I played a lead role in a production of the Arabian Knights. At one point in the show, I exited the stage as one character and about 30 seconds later, I had to re-enter the stage as another character. This involved a pretty significant costume change that I only had about 30 seconds to make. When we ran each scene individually with full costumes, hair, makeup, everything worked fine. It wasn't until we rehearsed the entire production that we realized there was no way for me to make that change on my own. It's never a good thing when a show is running, even in rehearsal, to hear the director screaming your name from the audience, asking, where are you? The variable, which in this case was myself, was not being passed properly between modules. We fortunately started these rehearsals early enough. We had the time and resources to make a change. What we did was we had a dresser move from being stationed in the dressing room to being stationed backstage to help me with the change. Had we waited until just before opening night, or God forbid, opening night itself, we would not have had the time and resources to make this change. Integration tests, running your application from beginning to end, are essential. There is time and cost to setting these up and maintaining them, but the benefits are worth it. There are bugs you will never catch until you run through your entire application. Doing this early and often ensures that you too will have the time and resources to fix these bugs. So far, we've covered vision, limits, casting, rehearsals. After rehearsals comes opening night, and after opening night comes Act Five of this presentation, reviews. There's a saying in show business, don't read your own reviews. The truth is everybody does. As a performer, I do what I do to entertain. I want to know what people thought. I want to know whether they found it entertaining, whether they experienced what I was trying to convey to them. I do the same thing as a developer. When I release an application, whether it's a public application or an internal tool that will only be used by my company, I want to know what people think. I want to know whether they find it useful, whether it added to their workflow. I'll admit I do sit at Twitter right after I launch it, watching it, refreshing it, and waiting for the reaction. Those few minutes of waiting for the reaction on Twitter, though, are terrifying. The key to dealing with reviews and maintaining your sanity is knowing the difference between constructive and unconstructive reviews. Constructive reviews may tear you down, but they also build you back up. They're what will make you a better developer. They may hurt to hear, but it's what will make you grow. In theater, an example of this is a review which reads, the performance of Hamlet was rather weak, because the actor playing Hamlet spoke very softly. If the actor playing Hamlet would speak louder, he would be much more effective. A software example of this is this web application is difficult to use because the links are not in any kind of order. Putting the links in a logical order would make it much easier to use. These reviews not only tell me exactly what the problem is, they also give me a foundation upon which to build a solution. Unconstructive reviews, by comparison, only tear you down. Their purpose is only to complain or to incite a reaction from you. A theater example of this is this show is completely without merit. Don't go see it. Again, sounds like an exaggeration, but it's not. An example of this in the software world, this has actually happened, by the way, is I hate this app and it makes my life horrible. These reviews don't give me any indication of where the problem is and don't give me any basis upon which to build a solution. When you receive unconstructive reviews, remember the canon rule of the internet. Don't feed the trolls. It's not worth it. Knowing the difference between constructive reviews and unconstructive reviews is also very useful when it comes time for you to give reviews. You will occasionally have to give a negative review, sometimes to a member of your own team. Keeping it constructive and keeping your criticism to the application itself rather than the person who wrote the application will help them maintain their sanity. Once you've isolated the constructive reviews from the unconstructive reviews, it's time to consider incorporating those reviews. It can be tempting to dismiss your audience as not sophisticated enough or not technical enough, but this really isn't fair. This is the audience you built the application for in the first place. It's your responsibility as the developer to show them what they should do, what they need to pay attention to, most importantly, why they should care. If the majority of constructive reviews are negative, it's time to revisit your vision, to figure out why people aren't experiencing it and what you can do to fix it. The best way I found to do this is to engage with constructive reviewers. If someone gives you a constructive review on Twitter, it can be really helpful to message them, to start a conversation with them, to figure out what it is they're not getting, what it is they're not seeing, and what you can do to fix it. Once you figure this out, it's important to incorporate these changes as quickly as possible. The quicker a user sees their problem fixed, the more good will you will restore. Additionally, the more good will you'll carry over the long term. Nobody likes to receive criticism. It's not fun. It took me a long time, both as a performer and a developer, to realize there is something useful in negative reviews. There would urge me to grow, and in the ever-changing world of software and theater, growth is essential for survival. We wield tremendous power. We create experiences that transport people to new places. In software, this may be creating a website where someone can easily book a flight from San Francisco to New York. In a theater production, this may be transporting an audience to the magical forest of Arden in a production of As You Like It. We weave these experiences out of seemingly nothing. Software, at its most fundamental level, is just ones and zeros that are understood by a computer. Theater, at its most fundamental level, is just a story, maybe a few actors, maybe a few props. These experiences can change a business, an industry, a society, even the world itself. You have this power. Use it wisely. Thank you.


se ultimately, if we don't address that, it's just going to be even more trouble down the road. So I just want to thank you all for your hard work. Thank you, Representative Chiena. I guess it's once a school commissioner, always a school commissioner. Thank you for your service, everyone. Unless we have any other questions, I think this concludes the meeting for the evening. I think we had a very successful meeting. We did very well keeping on time for most of it. I want to thank everyone for coming out and sharing their thoughts and opinions and particularly the candidates to come out and take questions as well as our elected people to give us updates. So without further ado, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. All right, thank you very much, everyone. We all have a good night.  Take care. Good night.


Hey, what's up you two I'm Zeke and welcome to the dream green show now I've been noticing that there's a trend on YouTube that there's a lot of youtubers out there showing you how to double triple 3x 4x 100 extra money in just one week and those are very very risky plays guys Now do I take those risky plays? Yes, I do what is only with about maybe less than three percent of my full portfolio Now the other 97 percent of my portfolio I use to make smart investments and most of these smart investments have helped me grow some of my accounts over $100,000. That's because I look at the market and I take Calculated risk look at calculated trends in which give me calculated returns So if you're wondering what I mean by what's a smart play like Microsoft? They're doing a 60 billion dollar buyback of their shares if there's less shares out there That means the value of the shares that you do own is going to go up over time Usually now should it go up nine times out of ten to say that it should now That's the calculated risk nine times out of ten says that this price is going to go up If there's less shares out there, that's a risk that I'm willing to take And what's better than investing into companies that run like a monopoly now? Everyone out there have played the board game monopoly the object of monopoly is to own Everything on the board to where you set the prices for everything Now i'm going to show you five companies that run just like monopolies that mean they have over 40 50 percent of the market share And they pretty much are run like a monopoly to even to the point to where some of these companies Get sued for being ran like a monopoly now Those are companies that I would love to invest into those are the smart players that we're looking for Yes, they might not 100x over the next week But these are calculated risk calculated returns into companies that are ran like monopolies They have market share over the whole industry And i'm going to give you guys five different companies that are ran like monopolies that you can invest into today That is not as risky of some of them 2x 3x 100x companies that a lot of these youtubers are out there talking about right now But before we dive into this video this video is brought to you by weeble signed up now by clicking the link Down in the description deposit any amount of money that you want and you will receive two free shares Valid up to $2,300 with those two free shares You could keep them inside of the platform and decide to use it or you could sell those two free shares And which are all of your money is literally free money Also, I left a link to moomoo down in the description You signed up for that deposit any amount as well and you can receive up to four free stocks Depending on how much that you deposit don't miss out on this free money guys This is a very easy opportunity to start your account or grow your account very fast But enough talking let's go ahead and dive straight into this video Welcome back dreamers. Here we are on my robin account. I'm sending around 88,585 and 52 cents over the last month Along i'm up 11,707 and 74 cents up 15.23 percent Now if you want access to every single time I buy and sell stocks and get access to some of our option plays I'm gonna leave a link down to patreon down in the description Join the patreon and you get access to the discord and right now for just one dollar a day Just one dollar a day your gain access to the highest tier in the patreon that I just started Is for cryptocurrency buy last month. We made around a 36 gain in just a single month Over there we have a couple of bots running where we start and stop them and we're taking profits where we can So if you want access to every time I buy and sell stocks are for just one dollar a day Have access to the cryptocurrency where we've been growing our portfolio over the last month or so Click that link down in the comment section. But now that we're back to robin hood Let's take a look at the first company that is man like a monopoly I'm pretty sure all you guys know exactly what it is It is apple. Okay, so here we are apple ticker symbol AAPL apple is up to $148 and 25 cents And I'm up around 12 percent on apple We have been dollar cost averaging in over on the patreon now when it comes to smartphones now We're just talking about smartphones. There's either two phones out there. You either have an apple phone or an android So apple automatically off the top you're thinking they own 50 percent of the market share But androids is not a phone company. They're just a software So you're looking at samsung LG the other 50 percent of the market is ran by other companies apple has the majority of the shares when it comes to smartphone In fact, when we look at the us market share by quarter Over the last quarter market over the last quarter apple had 53 percent of share samsung had 26 percent of share And lg had around three percent of the share when it comes to smartphone In fact apple app store was just sued by epic games because the app store was ran like a monopoly to where they was not able to sell other companies apps inside of the inside of their own phone that now they're getting sued by epic games aka fortnight So they're still gonna throw lawsuit with that companies that get sued for being ran like a monopoly Or i'm bad i'm just gonna suck to say this are companies that i want to invest into because they do hold a The higher percent of the market share that mean they have a big control of the company And then they're able to set their own prices on their own products No matter what they want to do because they are a majority of the market share So when i do own stocks of companies like that I like to get in because let's take one more look at apple because apple over the last five years is up 439 and they just had a stock split maybe a year ago And i could see them having a stock split over the in the next five years or so So i'm going to continue to dollar cost them on apple until we get around 100 shares The next big company that is ran like a monopoly is altria ticker symbol mo They have a market share of around 60 percent Altria they they they produce and sell cigarettes. They're now starting to get into the cannabis company Making vapes and pre-rolls and everything like that But when it comes to any cigarette that you could buy at any gas station any store With no advertisement at all. I think it's illegal for them to even make tv advertisements Um, maybe that could advertise in magazines even though i haven't seen them in magazines either But with a company that has 60 percent of the market share that produces a a product and by definition and scientifically proven to be Addictive to keep customers coming back to buy that product over and over and over again That is a company that you guys can invest into and i'm going to show you something right quick I do not invest into altria. I do not invest into mo because i've personally lost too many members to Lone cancer or cancer from smoking cigarettes So even though they ran like a monopoly that owned 60 percent of the market share and they produced a product that is Addictive i personally cannot invest into them even though they're on a pullback right now They're probably going to slingshot for it back in the future when they start to really hand Uh as soon as they start to cross over in the cannabis Industry, but if this is something that you guys would want to pick up altria might be a good choice for you In fact, they do have a pretty sweet dividend yield of 7.78 percent But let's move over to um monopoly number three moving over to monopoly number three Have you ever noticed that when you take out your trash? Well, I I live in Texas This is a little different in other places, but when we take out our trash, it's only one company that comes by and pick up Everybody trash on the street. Um, there's not individual companies There's companies that just got this entire city or this entire neighborhood and nine times out of 10 If you own a business this company picks up and recycles your trash That company is waste management one, but one of warren buffett's favorite company and one of my favorite companies over the last year They're up 30 percent. I own four shares. I'm up 37 percent on waste management as well And they do have a dividend yield of 1.4 percent.  There's always going to be trash We're humans.  So that's that waste management owns and operates several hundred recycling centers landfills and transfer centers in north america This enormous scale combined with the monopoly like characteristics of the business had turned to waste management into a fantastic Long term investment. Remember, we're not trying to three four 100x our money in just a week This is a long-term investment that would that that has shown Statistically to gain money over the last decade or so. So we're going to continue to dial cost in on waste management Um, they are ran like a monopoly. They're the biggest trash Service company there is in america So i'm going to continue to invest my money into this into this monopoly like company The next one is anhaja bus But wiser you guys should know what that is if you drink beer take a simple bud And haja bush has a market share of around 46 percent. It has a long-term top dollar status in united states Thanks to its ownership of a loma A number of best-selling beer brands such as bud riser michella ultra Bex stella bass and a whole bunch more however the company marketed Market dominance was brought to a whole new level last year after it spent over 100 billion dollars to swallow Sad miller now sad miller was the second was the industry's second largest player. So just imagine the the biggest company bought the second biggest company for 100 billion dollars on now and haja bus is Even bigger monopoly. I do not know how they are not getting sued yet But I could tell you right now that uh, i'm a user of their products and they're ran like a monopoly And i'm a user of their product. So this is another monopoly ran like company that i'm going to invest into that, uh They have 46 percent share of the profits when it comes to Beer beverages, but but it's probably going to increase even more now that they're about the second largest of their competition So let's go ahead and move to the biggest monopoly of them all Google now, all you guys know what google is google is the biggest search engine in the world In fact, google market share is 79 percent and yahoo.  They are a 80 percent share of the search engine Market google spies on me because i swear when i'm thinking about something to buy for the holidays It just automatically pops up in my phone And they already know what i want to search before i even type it in on the search engine So it's spooky scary if they're going to be spying on me like this I might as well go ahead and invest in them and make some money off of them spying on me But yes google is by far the biggest monopoly there is in the world. In fact, they have been sued right now They've been sued for 2.7 billion dollars, but that's nothing when they're making 92 billion dollars in cash Every single year. Yes, that's google One of the powerhouse companies on this planet and they are being ran like a monopoly started So that is our top five monopoly like companies that you should be investing into today in order to be rich by the time you retire And there we go guys We got an haja bush race management apple google and all year that is ran like monopolies guys So pull out that board game if you forgot what the monopoly is go ahead and look it up I was the best at monopoly But if you made it to the end of this video go down in the comment section Let me know which one of those five have you already invested into or planned on investing into into the future Or drop a comment down below of another monopoly like company that you personally own Or that you've been thinking about getting down in the comment section If you made it to the end of this video go ahead hit that thumbs up that really helps out this channel You can even imagine once again If you want to know every time I buy and sell stocks or want to join the cryptocurrency trading group for just a dollar a day I'm gonna leave that link down in the comment section It's going to be pinned at the top click the patreon Sign up and join the discord, but other than that guys i'm zeke bring you to dream green show and i'm out. Peace


It's round, it's sharp, it's beefy, it's complex. Monosodium glutamate, also known as MSG. Over the years, MSG has gone on a really bad rap. I can't eat that Chinese food, it has like too much MSG in it. Ugh, I can't have too much ramen, I'll get a headache.  I was going through my Facebook and I came across this graphic.  Oooooh. Well, guess what people, it's all a lie. Monosodium glutamate, a salt form from glutamic acid. Invented in 1908 by Kikunae Ikeda. It's commonly used as a flavor enhancer for Chinese food and other Asian cuisines. Giving food that meaty, sharp taste called mommy.  It's all a lie. Manufactured by xenophobia. The year was 1848. James W. Marshall had found gold in Sutter's Mill in Coloma, California, and thus began the start of the great California gold rush. With this, people all over the world wanted a piece of the golden pie. 300,000 people moved to California, which was huge. Considering the population of the United States was only at 17 million at the time, and a majority of the immigrants entering through Angel Island in San Francisco. Gold was plentiful and a lot of people became rich. Approximately $56 billion worth of gold was found. And life was great until the gold ran out. The people who didn't get gold were angry and wanted some. And the people who did get gold were greedy and wanted more. They wanted someone to blame. Man, if it weren't for those dang Chinese, I would have had more gold. So tensions began to rise. Anti-Asian sentiments were at an all-time high. Laws were made that prevented Chinese people from owning land. The Anticouli Act of 1862 heavily taxed Chinese immigrants from doing business in California. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prevented Chinese people from immigrating to the United States. Because of all the anti-Asian atmosphere, Chinese and other Asians had to stick together in close-knit communities such as Chinatowns. No one wanted to hire Asians or associate with them at all, which meant Asians had to become entrepreneurs and start their own ventures to gain money. This caused the birth of many Chinese restaurants in America. However, a lot of American business owners and restaurant owners saw Chinese restaurants and their success as an enemy and a competitor. Fast forward to 1968, a letter from, ironically, a Chinese doctor, Homan Kwak, who reported general weakness and health palpitations after eating a Chinese meal. He offered a number of reasons, only one of which was attributed to MSG. Thus began the witch hunt. MSG, a popular ingredient in Chinese and Japanese food, became the target of Western criticism. MSG was attacked in order to destroy the credibility and image of Asians and Asian restaurants. MSG gives me headaches. Like, honestly though, MSG hurts my stomach. If that were true, everyone in China and Japan would have headaches 24-7, and pretty much everyone would die of cancer, right? Well wait, if Japanese cuisine is so bad, why is their average life expectancy 84 years? The lie became so big that in the 1960s it was dubbed the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome. Tons of experiments were done, and the conclusion is that MSG has zero, no harmful effects. To quote the FDA, over the years, the FDA has received reports of symptoms such as headache and nausea after eating foods containing MSG. However, we were never able to confirm that the MSG caused the reported effects.  It's funny how people eat plates worth of fried food and sugary desserts, but then they complain about the MSG. Oh, it's not the fried grease or the thick nasty oils or the sheer amount of sugar consumed. It's the flavor enhancer, I'm sure of it. There has been no correlation or causation of headaches or asthma, or what some people call Chinese Restaurant Syndrome associated with MSG. There are apparently some individuals that are intolerant or have some concerns about MSG, but from a population standpoint, we don't have any sort of reason to believe that it would be unsafe at any level that is currently used in the US. Over the years, there's never been any empirical or factual evidence, only anecdotal, which is a fancy way of saying, in my experience, or from what I've heard. Here's a list of organizations and doctors with actual factual and empirical evidence that say that MSG is safe. I mean, rays of hands.  Pretty much any brand of potato chips. Fried chicken, chicken nuggets, french fries. Well, guess what? All of those contain MSG.  Delicious, right? Wait just a minute. What's this? It's funny. Campbell's has had MSG in their food for years, yet nobody bats an eye.  In fact, tomatoes, broccoli, walnuts, mushroom, and a variety of cheeses all naturally contain glutamate. The average American consumes 500 milligrams of MSG a day, just from eating a normal diet. This is without the Chinese food. So why do people say they get sick? A lot of people have reported that they've had headaches and nausea. Scientists have attributed this to the nocebo effect. In essence, if we think something is harmful, our brain tricks us into thinking that it's harmful. In the double blind experiment in 1993, it included 71 individuals who stated they had experienced MSG after effects like headaches and nausea. However, in the experiment, these same individuals did not experience any side effects at all. They were still consuming the same old monosodium glutamate. The only difference is they didn't know it. There was no misguided bias to let them believe that they were eating anything bad. The food wasn't served to them on a Chinese platter in a Chinese restaurant by a Chinese waiter. So there's no way it could be bad, right? This same experiment has been repeated multiple times over the years, and the conclusion is always the same. There is no correlation with MSG and any adverse after effects. Ian Mosby, PhD, award-winning author and historian, wrote in the Journal of Social History of Medicine, stating that Chinese restaurant syndrome was, at its core, a product of racialized discourse that framed much of the scientific, medical, and popular discussions surrounding the condition. Debates over the syndrome's causes and existence brought to the surface and in a way granted of renewed medical legitimacy to a number of long-held assumptions about the strangely exotic, bizarre, and excessive practices associated with Chinese culture. Thomas Germain, in his article A Racist Little Hat, the MSG debate and American culture, wrote, It's clear that racial biases sparked the original medical concern over MSG. These prejudices encouraged anti-MSG sentiment, and many doctors and scientists reached conclusions that crumble in the face of scrutiny. What's your feeling on MSG? I don't mind MSG. Yeah, I think it's good stuff. I do not react to it. Right. No, not me too. Nobody does it, so it's a lie, man. But you find a lot of natural MSG in tomato. In breast milk, in parmesan. Yeah, in a lot of products. Yeah, you know what causes Chinese restaurant syndrome? Racism. Who had the headache? It must have been the Chinese guy. Years and years of anti-Asian sentimentalism and anti-Asian propaganda are the reason that the myth exists. The MSG myth is just a lie born from racism and xenophobia. And it's really sad. Think of all the health implications MSG could have on the society if it wasn't for the backlash. Umami, which is a flavor that MSG utilizes, lasts longer than any flavor, like sweet, sour, or bitter. It also increases the flavor of the food without any additional sugars, fats, or calories. This would help patients that have trouble with appetite. It could be a way to make vegetarian and vegan food tastier. A lot of low-fat, low-carb food could be made edible with the help of MSG. The elderly face challenges in appetite due to decline in taste sensitivity. The addition of excess sauces and dressings may make food appetizing, but could be detrimental to health due to high sodium content. Umami enables food to be flavorful while luring the sodium content of the food and stimulating the appetite. There are so much health benefits that can come out of this, but the world refuses to see past this horrible lie. All right, due to world of favor, try some ramen, try some pad thai. Eat some Chinese fried rice. It's delicious. You know, there's so much good food in this world.  Hey guys, I hope you liked my video. Hit the like button and hit subscribe. And remember, when you're eating sushi, dip the fish into soy sauce. You buy the sushi for the fish, not the rice.


So you just need to check some boxes, not a problem. Check boxes are like everything else, except they are essentially an on-off button, that's it. So just like with a normal button, all of the visual properties for them are found under Style. If you have a custom unchecked box design, just assign it to the default hovered and pressed states. And if you have a custom checked design, swap those with the default hovered and pressed states as well. The size of the check boxes is controlled with the X and Y dimensions here and try to make sure that the size accurately reflects the visuals. For example, if the dimensions actually look like this, then the player might accidentally click on your checkbox when they're clicking on this empty space. If you disable the checkbox, it will become transparent and at the bottom you can assign commands to when the player clicks right here, you're done. Hope that helps and as always, hope you have a fantastic day and I'll see you around.


All right, so today out here, we are setting up a HER system that is a helicoptery speed and refueling system. We are setting up to practice and demonstrate our capabilities of fueling, of recirculating, issuing and testing fuel in a tactical environment. A lot of elements come into play while the main mission, the main focus and the main goal is setting up this fuel site and making sure we're able to receive fuel and issue fuel for future missions. Coming out here, actually putting boots to ground, getting these young Marines to actually see the importance of our job to set it up and actually issue fuel. How much of a grasp of their MOS that they're able to capitalize on and their capabilities in performing and executing their MOS properly in a training environment. What we have surrounding the 3K bag is called an ATV, an all-terrain burn. It is a containment burn, whether we have spills or we have any type of accident, it contains the fuel that's within the bag. That ATV, the all-terrain burn is able to hold up to 3,000 gallons of fuel within itself. So for today what we initially started out with was receiving from a 22 and then now we are issuing to COBROS. So this unit actually just came together probably less than a month ago. So this is our first actual field op together as part of the Mew. It's going really well. We're all kind of working together, feeding off of each other, looking out for different things. So it's going really well. The Marine Corps always implements how diverse we are with different MOSes and how we function amongst other Marines and other entities while performing our MOS and our duties.