Quality of mind or quality of focus which a tropic supplement is better. Let's find out Hey, what's up record you founder of your inception welcome to my channel where you can learn top secrets about new tropics Subscribe below to start your journey. You've been asking about this comparison between quality of mind and quality of focus for quite some time And now you finally have it. I've decided to do this Compare those two very amazing tropics decks and see which one is better So in this video, we're gonna look at the similarities between both We got a look at the differences and at the end of this video I'm gonna share with you which one do I recommend just before we start guys do let me know Which one do you like more quality of mind or quality of focus? Let me know in the comment section below So before we look at the similarities between both the tropic supplements Let me quickly share with you a couple of stuff you should know about Now first of all Both supplements are obviously developed from the same company near a hacker collective Which is very well recognized a very well known company in the tropic industry And they're known for developing high-quality premium Neutropic supplements, which you can see here by the packaging they use They use very high quality ingredients and so on now quality of mind is their flagship supplement Neutropic supplement, obviously and quality of focus was developed after quality of mind And you know it delivers very similar effects at almost half the price quality of mind contains 28 ingredients Quality of focus contains 24 ingredients. So as you can see both the tropic supplements are very good Very similar in many ways, which you're gonna see in a bit But this one quality of mind is almost two times more expensive than quality of focus Why is it so and is it worth the price? That's what we're gonna figure out soon But we guys have revealed seven special secrets about Neutropics that no one else will tell you to get them don't my free handbook below now Let's start with the similarities between both and tropic supplements First of all, you should know that both were developed to improve your mental functions to make you more productive to improve your memory Your focus and so on there's no doubt about it. The goal with both supplements was pretty much the same So that's what these two Supplements have in common. They both use high quality ingredients high quality in the tropics There's no doubt about it and they're both very well dosed So if you look in the ingredients if you go through every ingredient You will see that both are very well dose quality of mind a bit better though But still both are very high quality supplements and obviously another thing they have in common They come from the same brand So it's very rarely happens that one brand developed to such amazing supplements, but with near hacker obviously They did it so no matter which one you choose you won't go wrong keep that in mind So both supplements are high quality and if you just one or if you want another for whatever reason you won't go wrong Having said that both supplements do have a couple of differences You should know about first of all quality of mind contains 28 ingredients and quality of focus contains 24 ingredients And this is the difference you should know about because because of this four ingredients and a couple of other Neutropics that are a bit lower dose and quality of focus Quality of mind is more expensive quality of mind at current price You'll pay around six dollars sixty per serving Whereas with quality of focus you only pay around three dollars and fifty cents Per serving so there's a huge a massive difference in the pricing and this is mainly Because of those ingredients that we mentioned before when it comes to the overall performance of both the tropics tax It's really hard. It was really hard for me and my team to figure out any differences I mean we've been testing quality mind for quite sometime much longer than we usually test the tropics because personally I really liked it So I said I want to continue with the test and the same happened with quality of focus And it was really hard to say You know which one is which to see the differences to feel the differences One thing maybe that stood out is that with quality of mind you really Get all the benefits it promises whereas with quality of focus you get more focused you get more energized You're just never sure if it's as strong as quality of mind or not I mean, you know by default, you know, if you know the science behind it Then you can be sure that my mind is better But still because you cannot logically or rationally say this one is better It's always hard to judge and say, you know quality mind was better or not now Here is the thing as I said before both stacks are great and whichever you choose you won't make a mistake here If you're on budget if you want to save some money then I would recommend quality of focus There's no doubt about it for the price you pay here You really get a lot of benefits you really get high quality ingredients high quality in the tropics a whole range of different tropics And you know if you're on budget quality of focus go for it if however, you want to get the best Tropics in your body. You really want to get the best supplement for you Then quality of mind is a product to go for at least that's my opinion So if you want to read more about quality of mind and quality of focus there are links below just check them out If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me if you want to save some money There's a special discount code which you can find below as well So you're gonna you're gonna get a special discount for any of the two Supplements and of course, thank you for watching this video Don't forget to follow your reception on facebook and instagram and I hope to see you soon


What's up everybody Jason for Jaspies case breaks calm 2021 panini mosaic basketball fast break two box break Three random teams each number five just sold out and again guys all card ship Here's the dice because of her names. I am at the top down a Joel last while module tripled up your names And there's the teams. Let's roll the dice and then we got ourselves a full 12 six and a six one two three four five six seven eight nine ten 1112 Bennett down to Joel one two three four five six seven eight nine ten 1112 I bet it with the nuggets Sean with the 76ers Adam with the Clippers and T-wills Bennett with the Thunder Matthew the Celtics Randy with the Mavs Matthew with the Wizards Pelicans and Blazers Sean with the Spurs Joe with the Nets Adam with the heat Joe the Jazz Matthew with the Hawks Kian with the Warriors Sean with the Sacramento Kings Randy with the Pistons Adam with the Bulls magic I am with the Sons Adam with the Raptors Matthew with the Grizzlies Bennett with the Lakers Randy with the cows Matthew with the Pacers Rockets and Bucks I am with the Knicks and then Joe with the Charlotte Hornets at the bottom. All right. If you guys want to see your teams They're really quick Make any trades potentially Yeah Oh, that's nice. Yeah, what is out of three? All right, turn window close guys. Actually, let me just keep it there Can't really print out anyways I'll be topping and then Thomas Bryant to start us off a little disco that is number 250 autoporter junior and Tyrese maxi little variation It's going to the 76ers And Shawn there you go man Edward's wise men Payton Pritchard Patrick Williams Halley and an Anthony Edwards National Pride blue disco Number to 85 for the Minnesota T. Wells Adam Cumberman. There you go, buddy Very nice. Good box so far. Good. Good box so far. Puckoo And a Duncan Robinson autograph for the Miami Heat Miami Heat that is going to Adam Cumberman again quickly Wiseman And we got Devon Booker to 85 the Valley Patrick Williams a little prism That dude is pretty incredible Steve for sure. Yes, sir Rex on the schedule, buddy sold out Our next box guys Lamello Siddiq Bay Patrick Williams for the Dallas Mavericks Pat Williams look at that Anthony Edwards Silver There you go the rookie for the Sixers Paul Reed Did it make Daniels? Zubat and we have a Tatum Wiseman and Luke Canard for the Clipship Number to 85 and very nice Cole Anthony variation Where's the Orlando magic Adam Cumberman? What a break for you, buddy.  We'll be topping Dirk numbered Cole Anthony variation Canard Paul Reed autograph of Maxi Edwards Silver Anthony Edwards blue disco team national pride Maxi variation Duncan Robinson autograph Devon Booker Thomas Bryan a little Patrick Williams right there very nice solid two boxes guys I'll put up another two box break on the website Jasper's case breaks.com


OK, so good morning, good afternoon, and also perhaps good evening to everyone. I'm glad to be here attending the first ever and hopefully last Wikimedia virtual experience. My name is Luicina Ferrante. I'm from Wikimedia, Argentina. I am the Education and Human Rights Manager. And joining me today are Mariana Fosati, Wikimedia Coordinator of Visible Wikimedia Women Campaign at Whose Knowledge, and also Ian Ramson, a Wikimedia expert from Wikie Education and Wikimedians of the Caribbean. So today, we are going to share different experiences in these sessions developed within the Wikimedia Movement in the Latin American and the Caribbean region related to actions in order to decolonize the internet and also the role that Wikimedia projects have in this process. In the very, very first part of the panel, with Mariana, we are going to share the proposals in which we have been working this year, this first part of the year. And then Ian will also share his experiences and projects. And to close both the three of us, we are going to present some current examples that we consider are good practices developed throughout the Wikimedia projects that help to decolonize the internet. So here it is. To begin with the presentation, the main question we want to share with all of you that is part of our experiences and practices is, how can we decolonize the internet throughout Wikimedia projects? This question was the starting point for Mariana and me when we started thinking at the beginning of the year on how Wikimedia projects are helping in this process of decolonizing the internet. When we try to answer this question, this particular question, as always, other questions pop up. For example, what perspective are we approaching with the idea of decolonization? Who do we want to start thinking and opening the debate with? And also, what methodology are we going to use to generate a critical and collaborative debate process? So with all these questions on the table during March and June, we developed different instances to debate within the Wikimedia chapters and user groups and also civil society organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean about the idea of decolonizing the internet throughout the Wikimedia projects. So as you can see in the slide, in the first moment, we coordinated three round tables. They were closed and safe spaces. In the first round table, we organized the experience with the Wikimedia chapters from the region and also user groups. As you can see, they are the countries. And in the second round table, we organized the debate with the social and civil society organizations of the region related to digital rights, open knowledge, and human rights. In the first two, we presented the central question, this one, how can we decolonize the internet throughout Wikimedia projects? We worked this idea from the backgrounds and experiences of those who were participating. And we tried to define a common idea about what it means to decolonize the internet from the South and what challenges exist to contribute to this process from Wikimedia projects. The last one, the third one, we organized. We tried to work together with the Wikimedia chapters of the region and also the social and civil society organizations. And we tried to identify in this last round table key actions that can generate collaborative proposals and possible articulations between the Wikimedia movement and local civil society organizations to create a regional network that can work together on this topic. After these three round tables that were between April and May, in June, we presented all these debates and challenges at RightsCon 2021 in a community lab that we coordinated during the conference with the aim of sharing these experiences and continuing working in a collaborative way on the decolonization of the internet throughout the Wikimedia projects. We are right now trying and also writing a specific report with all these reflections and debates and challenges identified during all the different spaces that we were inhabiting. And we hope we can publish it as soon as possible after Wikimedia. So I want to highlight something before giving the floor to Mariana, that is when the main results that we achieved during these experiences was to define together and contextualize the idea of internet decolonization. And I think that in the next slide, Mariana will share with us some definitions and frameworks that can help to continue working on it.  I stay here. OK. Thanks. Thank you, Lucina. So what do we mean when we talk about the colonized internet and especially what it means from a global south perspective? These questions are the basis of our reflections right now. And our questions are related with the internet in general, but also related with Wikimedia as a good proxy of the state of the internet in terms of this colonization or decolonization process. If we think on the internet of today, we could see that actually is deeply skewed towards a monocultural view of the world. This view is primarily the view of white straight men from the global north, especially from Europe and North America. Even when 75% of the online population that is using and experiencing the internet is located in the global south, in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Island, and Latin America, and the Caribbean. So the internet today, the internet cultures today, what we can see as an internet culture is not the culture of the majority of us. Only is the culture of few people actually a minority in relation with the number of people participating, building, and using the internet. And almost nearly 45% of this population online are women. So there is still a gender gap. And that gender gap is bigger in those countries when there is still a huge digital divide. As I said before, Wikipedia is a good proxy of these problems because it's a good proxy of online public knowledge. And what we can see there, what we can see on Wikipedia, well, this is well known for everybody at Wikimedia, I think, but let's say that only 20% of the world, primary white male editor from North America and Europe, edit 80% of Wikipedia. And one or maybe two, it depends of what sources we use. In 10 of Wikipedia editors are self-identified female women. So the internet isn't diverse, isn't multilingual and multicultural by default. This is not a reality by default. By the contrary, hegemonic cultures and narrative, the same cultures and narrative that have been hegemonic in books, in TV shows, in cinemanias, papers, museums, in art collections, find strong mechanisms of cultural reproduction on the internet in the same way that in the past, in other spaces and media. So we must be aware of those mechanisms of silence, violence, and injustice also on Wikipedia. So as the colonizer, the internet must be for all and from all of us and not only for or from some of us. So you can read more about all of these in the Who's Knowledge publication, our stories, our knowledge. And you can go deep in on this structural problem of knowledge justice. So the next is you, Luli, it's about our challenges. Yes, you're right, you're right in here. OK, thank you, Mariana. I think that it's very important, everything that you shared and after the ideas and definitions that you shared in the last slide, I want to recover a little bit what I was talking about, the roundtables and the different debates that we generated there. And we identify in the same loop as Mariana was explaining some specific challenges that are really important to take into account if we want to contribute to the decolonization of the internet from a Southern perspective and throughout the Wikimedia projects, we can define these challenges or we define these challenges as real time and contextualized gaps. And they are very related with this idea that Mariana was sharing. The first one, the first gap that we identify in our debates was internet access gaps. According to Cepal, one in every three people in Latin America and the Caribbean cannot access a proper internet connection on their own devices due to their economic situation. This point is key for us if we want to think of strategies that are contextualized to our social, political, and economic reality. On the other hand, and Mariana already said it, is gender gaps. Here also emerged a lot of specific questions, like, for example, who are participating, how they are participating on the internet in Wikipedia, in what moment of the day they can do it. And in this last question, we want to bring something that is important that has to be, in some point, with the unequal distribution of caring tasks between men and women in our society that have a direct effect on the uses and spaces, in particular, women and diversities, can freely inhabit. Also, we identify participation gaps that it's more related with indigenous communities in their mother tongue. And the last two gaps that we identified and we debate, and we are already working on this and trying to continue analyzing this context and being part of this context is the content gaps and source and neutrality gaps. This is related with what kind of sources can we use in Wikipedia? And if those sources represent the diversity of cultures and communities that want to contribute in their languages, and also if all communities and cultures have the same understanding about what is neutrality. We think that with all these debates and also continue generating these kind of experiences as the one that we are sharing right now in Wikimedia, we can perhaps we can manage to work together throughout the Wikimedia projects generating inclusive practices. So I think that it's a lot of information in a few minutes. Perhaps there are some questions, but these were some of the main challenges we identified during these debates and the different experiences and places where we were presenting these experiences and practices with different actors from civil society, from Wikimedia, from the Wikimedia movement, and also from different countries and localizing their experiences. And we are still working on it and we want to continue working on it. So thank you very much for allowing us to be here during this. And now I will leave the floor to Ian so he can dip on these debates and the idea of decolonizing the internet throughout the Wikimedia projects in the Caribbean context. Hi. So I'd like to talk a little bit about one specific part of the Wikimedia universe and I want to focus mostly on Wikipedia which and precisely specifically the English Wikipedia which has been my home in the movement for the last 17 years. As we've talked about the internet itself is very colonial, very unequal, but Wikipedia's coverage of the world's knowledge in particular is uneven and it's uneven in specific ways that mirror a lot of the world's broader systemic inequalities which are which reflect from the things that Luzana and Mariana talked about things like access to sources and what contributes to source. The gender gap, of course, is a huge problem on Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia is we've now gotten close to 19% of biographies being about women. It's not a problem across all languages. The Welsh Wikipedia has done a great job but there's an awful lot still to do. Less perhaps obvious is especially to people outside the movement is the issue of uneven geographic coverage. So, you know, every, if you look at Wikipedia, if you look at North America every train station, every town has a decent article. You get further into the world and that's not going to be the case. It's especially bad in large areas of Africa and Asia. And beyond the uneven coverage, there's this interesting or not interesting but sort of pulling fact and that is if you look at European countries they are best covered in the Wikipedia that's in their own language. Switch to the global south and that's not true. They're best covered in the languages of other countries very often the language of their former colonial masters. When you think about the content on Wikipedia it's colonized in its very bones. So in the early days of Wikipedia, we needed content. The project needed content, content through traffic, traffic through contributors. So the content of Wikipedia contributors was supplemented with a lot of other free content that was available online. Notably the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the CIA World Factbook. And while a lot of this content has been rewritten, there's still an awful lot of that content underlying a lot of articles. Until earlier this year, the geography of Trinidad and Tobago article, for example, described it as slightly smaller than Delaware, which is very useful to people from Delaware and maybe Americans, but not to the world, not to, it's not a meaningful comparison. It's a very colonized comparison. And a lot of other articles, you look at them and you read language that's 19th century, you read attitudes that are totally out of date and totally the product of a white male Northern worldview. The last time I checked, there's still 11,843 articles tagged as incorporating texts from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and 4,870 articles with texts from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. So underlying Wikipedia is a lot of, things are perhaps worse than you might imagine. Now, as a contributor, it's fairly easy to contribute to Wikipedia as long as you sort of keep your head down and participate in your digital labor. But when you enter the world of debates that things get a little more difficult sometimes. As an outsider, as somebody who's not a white man, you do run into the issue of being seen as a special interest when you declare your identity. So if this topic is about something that you are familiar with and the rest of the community is not, you say, I'm from here. I know suddenly you're a special interest and you're no longer the white man from the global North which is implicitly assumed to be our arbiters of neutrality and distance. As we mentioned before, there's the issue of sourcing and I think sourcing and the inequities in sourcing, the differences in what constitutes a reliable source. All of these things are probably a discussion that needs to be had entirely on its own. So unfortunately, I don't think we have time to give that the coverage it deserves. Images are another place where colonial stereotypes are perpetrated. I've often been asked, I've often had people ask, why does Wikipedia prefer historical images? Now, of course, that's not actually the case. The case is that Wikipedia prefers free images and very often that's things that are out of copyright. So it's historical images. But even when we have free images contributed by community members, it's very often through the eye of, through a touristy sort of colonial eye. When we continue to present the world in this old fashioned way, we continue to perpetuate these stereotypes and perpetuate the vision of the global South as backward. So it's important and there's really important work that's done by groups like Wikileaks Earth and WPWP to use images that are there to add relevant images, to diversify and decolonize the presentation. But there's a huge amount that needs to be done. The last part of this is when we talk about decolonization, I'm often reminded of what happened in the 20th century. By, at the end of World War II, the colonial countries, Britain, France, Portugal, still thought that in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, they could, that they would gradually turn local control over to the local people. And maybe over a couple of generations, we would come to the point where we could be self-reliant and self-governing. In reality, the whole process of decolonization was largely over by 1975. And if there's a lesson in history for the Wikimedia movement, I think it is the fact that we need to be careful, we need to pay attention to this potential transition. They can happen much more quickly than we imagine. And while the community has done a great job of, with the movement charter, with all these changes that they want to do, we still have a very much a case where those of us who are in the global north, those of us who are comfortable with the global north are still telling people, this is the way it's going to be. We understand what to do in your best interest. And perhaps we need to do more listening and we need to do more preparation for the changes that are going to come. Could I have the next slide, please? So, work I've been involved with, I've been involved with work that Wikimedians of the Caribbean have been doing over the last three years.  And our goal really is to change the participation and perception of people in the Caribbean. So the Caribbean is more than just, sans-sans tourism beaches, but the world doesn't see us that way. And it's, so there's that and that sort of perception is very much the case on Wikipedia. There's also the Caribbean is seen through a colonial lens. There's tons of information on country X's colonization of the Americas. But we are segregated by our colonial histories and divided by our, divided or the things that bring us together, the commonalities that brings together tend to be ignored. So despite the fact that we are a multilingual area, continent divided by water, some people say there's a lot to do there. And we're working with, for example, we've worked with cultural activists in the region, we've worked with environmental scientists and things like that to bring people from the Caribbean into the movement. And now I'll return to Luzana, I think. No, I can't give you the floor, obviously. Okay, well, from our perspective here in Latin America and to have Ian sharing about Caribbean was great because sometimes when we talk about Latin America, we forgot too often the Caribbean region. So thank you, Ian, for that. And I will share some of the experiences in which Lucina, Mia, and our fellows from the region are involved in relation with develop a decolonized view of Latin America. And first of all, I think that this decolonized vision or view comes from the idea that human rights and social struggles must be in the center because colonization and decolonization, of course, are social processes and very conflictive and very related with the fights and the struggles of the people in the territories. So that's why we are focusing in some experiences related with that fights and struggles in the ground. So one of the experiences are collaborative campaigns organized on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia in collaboration with independent media and media activists in Latin America, which is a strong movement and also with social collectives working together to cover knowledge gaps, developing strategies, such a collaborative coverage of relevant events, social events like protests, political shifts, diverse cultural events. And for instance, every 8th March, feminist Wikimedians in Argentina and Uruguay and I think that also in Chile, Mexico, support the media coverage of the HMAR mobilizations and they upload photograph and other materials to Commons. This kind of collaboration between not only Wikimedians taking photos and uploading, but also in articulation with social movements is key in this kind of experience of collaborative campaigns in the ground. Another experience is related with resistance and memory building. And maybe Lulika can add more about this, but one very relevant example is Wikiderechos Humanos, Wikihuman Rights, and also Wikiderechos Humanos, LGBT Plus, and other initiatives to make visible human rights, memory, social justice and gender issues on Wikimedia projects from a rational perspective, and especially in partnership with journalists, historical memory sites, social movements related with memory and human rights, digital rights, civic society, organizations, also. And another experience is related with memory and visual knowledge to make women and LGBTQ Plus folks visible on the internet One specific experience is the Visible Wikibemian Campaign an annual campaign of whose knowledge that in the last three years has been campaigning with partners and friends from around the world, but with a special presence from Latin America making available on the internet more than 50,000 images of women to illustrate Wikipedia articles. And especially paying attention on the image, gaps on Wikimedia Commons, which is not only a gender gap, but also a gap that needs to make more visible Black women, brown women, indigenous women, trans women from the global South. So all of these experiences are interconnected initiatives. For instance, sometimes from a collaborative campaign covering protests and mobilizations, create materials to share on Visible Wikibemian, for instance. So all of these initiatives are interconnected and initiatives that seeks to create partnerships with organizations and groups that make a part of the, as I said before, of the social struggles and resistance in Latin America. And interwoven with their practices, their practices created with these social resistance movements, these communities are creating knowledge from the margins and from the cultural peripheries where people are still resisting epistemic colonial violence. And so if we seek for the colonization strategies, we need to listen and to create spaces for this kind of embodied knowledge and in another structure this way. So, and I will pass the word to, Luizina, do you want to say something to close the panel and then we can go for the questions? No, yes, thank you, Mariana. I think that it's very important for us to have this moment and share different experiences that we are developing and also projects that we are developing together in the region in Latin American and in the Caribbean. And also I know that we have 10 minutes for questions. So something that I want to read is the question of Kristoff that somebody shared with us in our chat. A minute, please, that I'm here. Is there a statistical number of indigenous communities within the global south, especially America? I don't know, Ian, if you have a specific answer for this. Meanwhile, I can share at the Etherpad a specific research from international human rights organisms that is working on this issue. I have specifically the numbers for Latin America and the Caribbean indigenous community, perhaps not for the global south, but I think that will help to this question and also to access to more information about this because there are too many indigenous communities in our lands. So I think that it's an important question. I will share this in the Etherpad. Yeah, I don't know if, I mean, the question of how many indigenous communities around the Americas is beyond my scope, but the definitions of indigeneity in the Caribbean in particular are interesting when you have a lot of community, when you have the colonization almost erased the indigenous communities, and now there's a question of, you know, trying, groups trying to reassert themselves as Puerto Rican or Jamaican Tainos and a dominant narrative that says, no, these people are extinct. So it's pretty tough in that regard. Yes, yes, I know it. So I was looking for something that can answer in a specific way because I don't, I don't like to give numbers that are not really numbers. So I think that I will put, I am putting now in the Etherpad. I don't know if there is any question or here. Well, yes, there are a lot of questions that you're sharing with us. Do you want to take it? I do have a thought on Galdor Gonzalez's question about oral traditions. And in the chat somewhere else, Ziko made a really interesting bit of information that I didn't know that the Haitian Quail Wikipedia uses oral sources, but more widely in the community I believe that there are, I think, I believe that the Wikisport is a great resource to build oral histories. And I would love to see that project develop into a source where we can collect these and link them and create metadata around them. We aren't at this stage where, I mean, the community isn't going to accept oral sources yet, but I think there is, it's something we badly need to move towards. Yes, and to, I would like to add something about reliable sources. And recently I participated as advisor on a study conducted by Art Plus Feminism, a user group, and the study is called Unreliable Sources, and you can find it on Art Plus Feminism website around Wikimedia sources and reliable sources on English, Spanish and French Wikipedia's, and I think that we also need to revisit the, and this is related also with the question of Andy, Mavik, we need to really reflect and discuss the idea of reliable sources. First of all, each Wikipedia has their own policy of reliable sources, own definition, and some Wikipedia, there are even a clear definition about reliable sources, and in one hand, I think that, and many people think that to have a super specific detailed definition of reliable sources can be very restrictive, but at the same time, it's important to discuss that because for some editors, at the end, what is a reliable source? It's solved through power relationships, and what is a reliable source is solved not specifically in the Wikipedia policies, but in every article, especially in articles related with people from the global south, places, artists, and et cetera. So we need to go and read carefully the policies, and for instance, if we think on how to add oral traditions on reliable sources, well, maybe we can pay attention on how we can document and how we can share that knowledge in an explicit way, like not only on text, but also video, audio formats, different formats in all, obviously in a respectful way to those groups and cultures that own that traditions and traditional knowledge, but I recommend you to look at that very recent research, and I think that Aluseminis will run a session about that, I think I have to check, but you can check also, and I highly recommend that discussion. I have a quick answer also to Andy's question, particular about a Catholic hymn writer. The issue that matters is that these things exist in a context of a colonial world. So the attitudes of the 19th century are very much centered on Europe. So for example, there's an article about Sonon LeMond, who was a very important figure in Trinidadian agricultural history. His article takes language from, I think from a contemporary source, which talks about he went out to Trinidad where his family owned a plantation. That tone is very othering, it centers him in Scotland rather than the place where he lived most of his life, and so when you take language, the information isn't bad, but the language has biases that can be very othering to the rest of us, despite the fact that you're talking about a Scott. Okay, well, we know that we have one minute left, and we want to thank you everyone, and see you in Wikimania. It's a very, very rich program, and we are going to be there. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Bye, thank you.


Part of our final inquiry question in module 8, we are looking at chemical synthesis processes and we're specifically looking at, in this video, yield and purity. Now I have looked, split all of these different components up with a specific process to kind of focus in on those, but any of these processes could be used to evaluate all of the factors that are associated with chemical synthesis and design. But this time, we're going to be looking at the production of sodium hydroxide. Here's the equation to represent the production of sodium hydroxide. And this is actually an electrolysis process. So in this case, what we're doing is using electricity to create a chemical reaction. So that means it's not spontaneous in this direction, it won't automatically react. We're going to need to put a source of energy in order for it to react. And in order for us to obtain our goal product of this type of industrial process, which is sodium hydroxide. Now what you need to do is set up something called an electrolytic cell, which just looks like a galvanic cell, but where we've reversed the electrodes basically. So that as the electrons flow in the opposite direction, we actually get a chemical reaction to occur. To simplify things a little bit, if you consider that our two half cells that we would have, and the thing with an electrolytic cell is you don't have to separate them because the reaction's not a spontaneous one. But what we usually do is we separate them by some sort of a membrane or an alternate electrode. Three processes have been identified as being particularly important to this type of process. And we've changed them over time for a number of different reasons. Not all of which are associated with yield and purity, but they do give us a little bit of an idea of the sorts of things that we can discuss when we're thinking about this. As you'll know, I can give you 20 slides which all break down the whole process of sodium hydroxide production, but we have to think about what are the sort of things you're likely to get in an exam. And in an exam, you're going to have to have a little bit of information about each process, which you're going to have to withdraw and then use your knowledge of the factors associated with chemical synthesis and design to make some conclusions. So these are the sorts of things that you might want to talk about when you're talking about yield. We've always said that the most important thing about yield is we want to maximize it. It's important that we maximize yield when we are looking at any industrial chemical process, because that's what it's all about. It's an economic process. It's one in which we are trying to produce a quality product, but also we want to produce as much as possible to meet the demands of our markets. Purity is a different kind of a thing and purity is basically about isolating the desired product. So in this case, when we try to isolate our desired product, we have contaminants in with our sodium hydroxide and we don't have pure sodium hydroxide, and that's going to create some problems around the consistency that we have with what we're trying to sell.


Well, here we are at Monday Morning Manow. You may say to yourself, it's Tuesday, why are we calling it Monday Morning Manow? Well, it takes a couple of days to catch up with Mondays these days. So by the time we get our heads screwed on, right, it's Tuesday, at least, maybe Wednesday. And this was especially the case this week, because Monday morning was really out of this world. I, myself, was in the Big Island. And I'll tell you my story right after you meet Arby Kelly, who is also a participant in this great effort of ours to bring some kind of commentary to the events of our time. Hi, Jay. It's great to be here. Super excited to be here with you today. Yeah. By the way, we have a lot of shows going on about politicians running for office here in Hawaii. And I think they all ought to be, all these, you know, campaigners ought to be asked, you know, how do you feel about what's going on in Washington and the country? Because I think everybody ought to talk about it. Yeah, they should, and not only be asked peripherally, but they should also be kind of stuck to the answers, because a lot of people will just gloss over, oh, I think we live in interesting times. But when you dig into how they are reacting to immigration issues, how they're reacting to foreign policy issues, how they're reacting to any of the hot topic issues that we're dealing with, that's how you really find out where they lean on the political spectrum and how you can rely on them or not. Yeah, because if you know where somebody stands, fair, you know, it's full disclosure kind of thing, then you can, you know, assign a certain level of credibility or acceptance to what they're saying, or at least understand the context of what they're saying, because everything, everybody is so polarized these days. Not us, though. We're great. We may not agree on everything, but we are not polarized. And at the end of the day, we're still friends, right? Yeah, a civil conversation. That's really all you can ask for. Okay, let's talk about the big one. So there I am. I went to a wedding on the Big Island, and on Monday morning, my wife and I were ready to come back, but I turned on the television after having avoided, you know, this kind of television news over the weekend, and there it was on MSNBC, which is the only news channel in that hotel. And boy, it was hot. And these various commentators and, you know, experts and participants, they were screaming about what happened in Helsinki. And of course, that was followed by a lot of stuff in the press and other television all day long, and he was basically held, you know, held to the fire on that, roasted by every news media that I could find, even by Fox News. Yeah, yeah. And I think the essence of it was that, you know, he didn't seem to acknowledge what his own intelligence agency has found. He didn't seem to acknowledge what seems to be generally understood, namely, the Russia, you know, attempted to meddle in our election, did meddle in our election process, which is sacred under the Constitution. How did they meddle? But the question is whether Trump, you know, admitted that, and he didn't. He didn't admit that at all. He brushed the question aside and began talking about Hillary Clinton and where the emails go. And then he made these statements in favor of Putin, saying he was a nice guy, and painting him in a very positive way. And he made these statements against the, not only against the intelligent community, but against the country, against the country. Tell me more about what he said there. He said it's our fault. Our fault, that. That the relationship with Russia has degraded. And it's our fault, and we have to make up for this. And, you know, but nobody has ever said that we meddled in Russian elections. Nobody has said that. That doesn't mean we haven't. It just means it hasn't been said. Nobody has said it. But I can see where he's coming from on one issue, on the other. Nobody has said it, not a single soul has said it. All right, that's fine. I would say there's zero evidence for that proposition. Well, we spy on our allies. So really. That's not the same thing. This is affirmative meddling. You know, and this is all on the heels of the 12 people who were indicted as agents. And the woman, Maria, I forget the last name, the woman who was indicted as an agent just that same day. It was a big day. So, yeah, I mean, I know we're not going to disagree on exactly the import of this. And Trump himself, after being roasted and toasted by the media around the world, around the world, on everybody, every country, every continent, he said, no, I was a good meeting. And we lived in alternative universes. You could see what kind of meeting it was. It was all on video. And you could make your own mind up about that. But his view of it was different than really everyone else's. And I don't fully understand that. Do you have some kind of analysis to justify how he could find that it was a good meeting when he had taken a position against the United States, blaming the United States? Yeah, absolutely. So we don't know exactly his agenda. So this meeting would have gone exactly according to plan, exactly the way he wanted to. And so for him, it would have been exactly what he wanted to happen. What did he want, do you think? I don't know. What do you think he wanted? Well, I think it was an article recently that he wanted, that every opportunity for him is an opportunity to aggrandize his own power. And somehow this was that, because he dumps on his own agencies. So he belittles them. And in the process increases his own view, his own image in the world. He dumps on Europe. And the same thing increases his own image in the world. I mean, that's an arguable position. That resonates with me. All he wants to do is increase his own power. Well, along with that, I think you also have to keep in mind, we haven't died from nuclear war yet. So it can seem really bad.  So I don't think we're going, well, I think for one, like him and Russia, I think that may yet work in our favor. Like, we may all be lambasting him now for appearing to be too friendly. But if, as long as he's on good relationships with Putin, then Putin is less likely to, we instinctively like people who like us. And I don't know if Trump consciously knows this, or if he's just subconsciously knowing it. But if Trump shows that he really, really likes Putin, Putin is more inclined to like him back. Which is actually kind of good news for us. I don't want the KGB to like me. And I don't want Putin to like me. I wouldn't trust him for one nanosecond. Well, you don't have to trust him. Well, I think he's the kind of guy that would stab you in the back, or worse yet, he would put radioactive poison in your cup of tea. He's an assassin. And they're, you know, in my view, my view is that there are very few people in the world who are more monstrous than Putin. So to make him your friend, what do they say, bring your enemies close and make, you know, I don't think that's really going to help us. How you see him as a monster, I think the personality of Putin and the personality of Trump, they are like just slightly offset mirrors on each other. Maybe they're equally monstrous. I think it's possible. Well, I think there's always a monster inside of every one of us. It's just some people stuff that monster down, some people let it free. I want to be clear, I'm not a monster. And I don't think you're a monster either. But I know we each have a monster. I have to dig very deep to find that. There, but you would have to dig deep to find it, but you would eventually find it.  But there are some mammals that are psychopathic mammals, it's different. That's true. There are some mammals who are psychopathic, but I don't think we'd find Putin as being psychopathic, simply because psychopaths create so much destruction wherever they go, they have to keep moving, because eventually the way they use and abuse people really comes back to them. So I think there's definitely issues going on with these world power leaders. I don't think we can say it's specifically psychopath. This country has had a remarkable history. Many people have died of fighting wars. What they thought the proposition was saving democracy. And they have, at least in two world wars, they have saved democracy. And myself, I'm very patriotic. I can't even explain to you how patriotic. I was in the service and I saw and felt that. And when a guy gets up, tells me the country is wrong, I really get a bad reaction, especially when he tells it to sidle up to our known enemy, an enemy who has done incredible things in Crimea. As I said before, a murderer, and taking advantage of us and meddling in our elections. Our most sacred thing in the world is our elections. That's democracy. Democracy is all about voting. Democracy is all about electing leaders. But I am with you so far. Especially if you're the leader of a country, you shouldn't be apologizing for it. But I'm curious exactly how they meddled. Can we kind of find, how do you feel that Russia meddled specifically? Okay, just talk about the indictments that were brought out a few days ago. And talk about this agent, this woman who was trying to set up meetings with Trump. The indictments, the indictments have been reported in the press verbatim.  And you can see the scenario that the justice or that Mueller has laid out in great detail about they were doing. There were Russian agents with that organization. I forget the acronym for it. KGB? KGB? Or is that not school? G-U-R-L, like that. It sounds like a girl. No, it's not that.  It was intentional. It was an official Russian attack on the U.S. and on democracy. And they show you person by person, keyboard by keyboard, official by official. Who did what in order to subvert American voting? And it's really hideous what they did. And the justice or rather Mueller has the goods. He has the names and times. He knows what programs were used. Who sat at the keyboards? It's amazing. You know, it's a tremendous success for American intelligence that we have so much information. Let me also tell you that, theoretically, from a professional point of view, you don't seek an indictment and you don't get an indictment unless you believe and the grand jury believes that you have admissible evidence sufficient to prove that case, that crime, beyond the preponderance of evidence. There's a whole bunch of people out there that believe that this evidence that, you know, feel under oath, I suppose, that this evidence is true and provable and would result, you know, in convictions for all the people involved. Now, just taking that, and it's been in the press in some detail about exactly what has been alleged in these indictments, those guys were working to bring us down. They were working to manipulate our electoral process and debase our electoral process. And it was really bad, really bad. It's, this is the worst statement of what they have done. And it was the official Russian government that did it. I believe all of that. And I think that a lot of people have made important, refined, and professional decisions before that indictment was handed down. So I think it's insidious, nefarious. I think it's criminal. And I think Putin is right in the middle of it. Do you think he would not be, one country attacks another using all those weapons and all that money that he had to be spending in order to attack us? It's not an accident. It's definitely not an accident. I don't know that we can pin it on him, specifically just because... You think it was somebody, a, a runaway, a runaway guy that felt so strong? When we were spying on our allies, we didn't say, oh yes, I, the president, decided to spy on you. It was like... They never admitted. They never admitted. And Putin would never admit it. Exactly. But the fact is that the president is always going to be consulted with something like this. If you want to go make an attempt, I mean, it's got huge diplomatic implications, huge national security implications. The president, in both cases, would know about it. And by the same token, all this about Trump and the meeting and the Maria girl and all that, you think he didn't know what was going on? I think there's another shoe to drop here, and it's very clear that that shoe is that Trump knew. He knew he went out there. He had his family seeking, arranging these meetings, responding to Russian agents who try to make these meetings. Maybe he did make them, did make them with some of his family, right? So, you know, what happens, you think that this happened underfoot and he didn't know that his own campaign was dealing with a foreign nation which had essentially unlimited resources to fight Hillary Clinton? Do you think that Trump didn't know? That's the shoe that's going to drop. And when that shoe drops, we're talking about some serious criminal charges, including treason against your friend, your friend, not my friend. Your friend. Why would you say my friend? Okay, well, I'm not my friend. You believe him. Do I? Do you believe him? Or am I playing devil's advocate? All right, I happen to think there is a lot going on that we don't know. We can connect certain dots, but there are a lot of dots. And so, I think one can easily take the view, oh, it's all just a big misunderstanding. You can also take the view, this is a big conspiracy. And I think there's a lot of room between that spread of dots that we're not going to see how this plays out for a while yet. We're going to take a break. And during the break, we're going to read the indictment. All right, let's do that. And we'll come back and tell you what we found. See you in 10 minutes. Are you tired of sleepwalking through life? Are you dreaming of a healthier, wealthier, happier you? You're not alone. And that's why thousands of people tune in each week to watch RB Kelly on Out of the Comfort Zone Tuesdays at 1 p.m. Make a change. Get the help you need.  The Army, we're going to go live. Hello, it's 1 p.m. on a Tuesday afternoon, and I'm your host, RB Kelly. Welcome to Out of the Comfort Zone. I'm Jay Fidel, ThinkTech. ThinkTech loves energy. I'm the host of Mina, Marco, and Me, which is Mina Morita, former chair of the PUC, former legislator, and Energy Dynamics, a consulting organization in energy. Marco Mangostorf is the CEO of Provision Solar in Hilo. Every two weeks, we talk about energy, everything about energy. Come around and watch us. We're on at noon on Mondays, every two weeks on ThinkTech. Aloha. You're probably not surprised with this, but RB and I did not finish reading the indictment. But we will. There's more to fall, more shoes to fall on this thing, both on the Maria Agent Woman, who was revealed later, and then the 12 defendants. Chuck Schumer got up in Congress and made a very passionate—that same day. And one of the things that he recommended was that the Russian government, if it was really sincere, would send those people over here, the 12 of them, over here for trial, because this is a real problem. You can't try somebody in absentia so easily. So just as the last set of indictments that was handled down, handed down, you really can't do much with it unless you can set up a trial and find them and introduce that evidence. Right now, it's questionable. In fact, it's unlikely that any of those defendants are going to come here. But Maria is in jail right now. And others—there are quite a few others that Mother has found and indicted and maybe made deals with. The thing is beginning to unravel, you know? Well, and I tell you, we are going to see a giant, fascinating, gripping edge-of-your-seat blockbuster to come, showing this tale and telling all about it. I feel we're going to see several Trump movies. This is Trump's ultimate reality show.  But at this time, it's in reality instead of just on TV. You know, if you listen to NPR News and I do, every newscast, every hour and a half hour begins with the same two words— President Trump. And if you look at The New York Times, the first 20 articles are about President Trump. Well, I'm just wondering, what is he going to do after he gets out? I mean, really, what is there— Out of jail, you mean? Out of the president—well, jail may be presidency also. But what is there after that? You know, he's going to be out of the camera's eye unless he either dies in office or does something like consistently crazier, crazier, crazier in the years after his presidency. Montgomery Ward was a big mail-order store back years ago. And in the 50s, it was the guy named Averill, who was the president of Montgomery Ward. And he had done some bad things, and the board of directors relieved him. They fired him as a CEO, and he wouldn't leave. And the news was that the police and the law enforcement agencies came into his office, the CEO's office, and they lifted up his chair and physically carried him out of the building in the chair because he wouldn't leave. I suggest to you, we're going to have the same thing here. Trump loses. He's going to say it was rigged, and he really should have won. Well, what's gotten me really kind of uncertain about what's going on is that I remember when President Obama was president, any time he had any sort of conference with any foreign power, the conservative, all the news I would be hearing would be going on and on about how he was such a bad president, how what he was doing was treasonous to America, how he was letting the country down, apologizing for us. And I heard that in the conservative news over and over and over, which, considering I'm sure you disagree with that, conclusion makes me uncertain about trusting the mainstream view of what's going on with Trump now. I think when people criticized Obama on a regular basis, I thought a lot of the criticism against Obama was because he was black, I think was racial. I don't think you can really bring it down to that. I think when people in Congress that never gave him a moment's peace, he couldn't, you know, it's interesting how this worked out. He couldn't get anything through Congress. So he resorted to executive orders. And that same pattern, you know, that was, in a way, you know, unfortunate because the same pattern as what Trump is doing, you know, rolling the executive orders back and making his own really wild executive order. But if you look at it from a moral point of view, and I'll stop here, there's no equivalency at all. I thought that Obama was not a perfect president. He made some, you know, really gross mistakes. But he was a moral man. And it troubles me that anyone would compare. I mean, between what Obama did and what Trump is doing, Trump doesn't tell the truth. He's not moral. And he attempts every day to confuse us and misalign us and create polarization. And, you know, I tell you, if you talk to anybody looking at the national picture, they will say the country has changed simply for his lack of goodwill, his lack of good faith, his lack of morality. And the country follows that. It's the strangest thing. The country follows the president. Even if he's dead wrong about so many things, he's changing us, RB. Well, I happen to agree, our president does leave the country. But what you were saying about how he's not moral, how he's lying, how he's trying to, like, divide the country, all of that, I was hearing and seeing on a daily basis during the Obama presidency, which is why, even if I happen to agree on a lot of these things, it's hard for me to take it seriously. Because one side of the country gave Obama a really hard time as president. You think it was a good meeting? I haven't done a lot of research about that meeting, so I cannot say whether it was a good meeting or not. Do you find these indictments probative? I haven't done a lot of research on the indictments, because we didn't know what we were talking about. You haven't made up your mind on that. I haven't made up my mind. But you couldn't say that we're right or wrong right now. I couldn't say that. But seeing, knowing what the research I've done on Trump issues in the media in the past, and my own experience, like seeing the controversy for President Obama makes, I'm seeing a lot of parallels about how one side of the political spectrum reacted to President Obama, and now how the other side of the political spectrum is reacting to President Trump. I'm seeing a lot of parallels, and seeing the conservatives like forecasted the end of the world with President Obama, and it didn't happen. So it's hard for me to take seriously this almost forecast. Well, let's look at that. I mean, I think, I just agree with completely, but that's okay. We're still friends. Fact is that Trump is ripping up the world with these tariff wars. He's taking huge risks on our behalf with China. He was doing incredible things by calling Kim Jong-un, Rocket Man, and all that, risking nuclear war. Now he's effectively destroying the EU and our relations with every country there. A lot of people have been effective for a long time. These are our allies. We went through two wars with them, especially the Second World War. We have been there friends and they're trading partners for way beyond my life and yours, and he's ripping it up. He's alienating them left and right. Now, he's getting in bed with Putin, who is their enemy and our enemy.  He is denouncing all the relationships you can think of. And there will be a price to pay. We will have to pay for it. We are isolated. We are now being hated by some people and countries. We always have been. Even under Obama, even under Bush. We were loved in Europe. We go to Europe, talk to anybody, how they love Americans. I've heard the opposite story about how Americans have basically always been the joke of Europe. I've heard that from almost every American I've talked to. I've never found that. I've found that they loved Americans. I don't think they love Americans so much anymore because we're unpredictable and we elected Trump or arguably we elected Trump. So, I mean, they're talking him down. Asia is making plans, Xi Jinping's making plans to pull the rug out from under him is doing that right now. The trade wars are ridiculous. They could have been done in some, you know, we could have equalized trade or tried to equalize trade in ways.  And now we are destroying our position as the world leader. We're no longer the world leader. We haven't been a world leader for a... A lot of people say we haven't been a world leader for a long time. Yes, we have. I haven't to agree. We are one of the best countries in the world. I think our... We've been a world leader for a long time. And until his administration started with this, we were the world leader. Now, I suspect we are not. And I, you know, the American dollar has been the reserve currency for the world. With nothing to back it for a long time. And China has been coming for the currency for a long time. A matter of confidence, world confidence in the American dollar. Now, I don't think that confidence exists. And we run the risk of losing the reserve currency. Some other currency will emerge. The world will gravitate to that. This will have a huge effect on our economy. Watch out for our economy. I mean, he's dumping on everybody. And why? I mean, we said power. And we said, you know, distract the public. It runs a parallel to Germany in the 30s. So what you have on Monday is condemnation by people on actually both sides of the aisle, from people in Europe who are grossly affected. I mean, hugely affected by what happened in Helsinki. And we are, now we are the laughing stock, for sure, that we have this albatross hanging around our necks. You know, you go down a list of what people said. The Democrats condemned him. Many Republicans condemned him. Articles that I've seen, one by a fellow named James Farrow in the Atlantic, saying it's time for them to fish and cut bait. If they're, you know, going to support the country or support Trump, because he's made that, he made that the requirement. And the base, that's the most interesting thing. The base says, well, no, we still think he's great. And if he says this was a great meeting, it must have been a great meeting. Well, the base says that, I think, in a lot of reasons, because there's been a lot, there's a lack of trust in the media. So when the media comes in and says, Trump did a bad thing, people look at that and they're like, did Trump do a bad thing, or is the media just causing trouble again? And since they already like Trump, since they already have some evidence in their minds that the media is just doing a bad thing, it's, they're more likely to believe, I'm just going to like, I'm just not going to do anything about it. Because I think the media has done a very, very excellent job of destroying his own reputation, playing Trump's game, and playing into this divisiveness. And I think if our country is not careful, we could easily move into a more Nazi Germany or stylistic era of tragedy and of horror and of pain. And I think the only way that won't happen is if, even as we disagree, we remember to watch out for each other, to be kind to each other and to listen to each other. Because if we do that, if we refuse to let the media, the president, the politics divide us, then we stand a chance no matter what games they're playing. I'm not afraid of you.  I think you're fabulous. We can get along together. I'm sure we can have this conversation, you know, on an ongoing basis. But I'm really afraid of him. And I think he's doing things as president. He's so much power and he's doing things to scotch the whole Constitution. Our form of government is at risk here. It's always been at risk. This is the biggest daily constitutional crisis imaginable. I never thought this before him. And many, many people, all the people that I know, every lawyer that I know, for example, I can't say everyone, but most of them, 99% of them, are really threatened by the fact that this man is undermining our Constitution on a daily basis. But I heard that about Obama. And our democracy. I heard that about Obama. There's no indication of that whatsoever. I happen to believe we need to get back to the Constitution. I don't think Trump is a good president. I don't think President Obama was a good president. I expect better. And I hope this coming cycle, we get better, better options. We need them. I'm not going to respond to that now. I'm still trying to react to it. Next time we talk, I'll tell you more. That's Arby Kelly. We don't necessarily, we don't agree on everything and we disagree on many things, but we still talk. We'll be back for more.


with Wayne Pacell. Pacelli or Pacell? I still don't get it right. Pacelli. Pacelli. All right. Okay. And he is an executive with the Animal Wellness Action out of Washington, D.C. and he is here to talk to us about cockfighting arrests on Molokai, I guess in May, which is very interesting. So what is animal wellness action? Because, you know, we need to be concerned about animal wellness. We need to be concerned about every part of the animal kingdom. But what do you guys do about it? Well, we concentrate on establishing legal protections for animals to forbid a variety of forms of animal cruelty to domesticated animals and also to wild animals. But then I think, Jay, very importantly, we work to enforce our laws. The laws without enforcement are simply slips of paper. And with this asymmetrical relationship we have with humans and animals, that we hold all the power, we hold all the cards, we can do whatever we want to these animals, we need restraints put on people and the law serves that function. I'm thinking of the Attenborough movies, of which there are a number on cable these days. For standing for the proposition, which I'm sure you guys live in, and that is, you know, it's all integrated. It's all part of the same geo environment. And we need to protect the animals because they're part of that environment. You know, the earth spent hundreds of thousands of years developing its flora, fauna, animals, humans, what have you. And we can't afford to lose them. And we are losing them by way of extinction and one kinds of brutality or another by human beings to animals. This is very tragic because you can't bring it back. Is that part of your mission? Oh, without question, Jay, you know, we all breathe the same air. We drink water. It has to be clean. We depend on planetary health for survival. And animals and humans are no different in that respect. I think in another way, it's important to remember that, you know, animals have a heartbeat, just like we do. They feel pain. They suffer. They are not just machines that are in some endless quest for mates and gathering food. They have emotions. They feel terror when threatened. They feel happiness when they play together. They feel love for their family members.  Any of us who've had a dog or a cat, any of us who pay attention to nature and see wild animals, knows that this is a continuity of life, that the differences are differences of degree and not kind.  We can be the lords and do horrible things or we can be the lords and do good things. I choose the latter. Of course. So how did you get into this? How did you get to be the executive director of Adderall Wellness Action? Are you a founder? What drives you? I am a founder and I've been involved. I'm 55 years old, but I started an animal welfare group when I was a college student and undergraduate at Yale University. It was going to go to law school, but got pulled into doing animal advocacy. I then have run a number of the major national animal welfare groups. I've run 40 ballot measures, helped pass 100 federal laws and amendments, nearly 2000 state laws, negotiated agreements with SeaWorld to stop their breeding of orcas and Walmart to stop the inhumane treatment of animals in their supply chain, and hundreds of other agreements. So it's been a lifelong passion of mine. I wrote a couple of New York Times bestselling books. One of them is called The Bond, our kinship of animals are called to defend them. And in that book, I argue that we humans have an instinctive connection to nature and animals. You can see this as a child, we're drawn to animals and we're drawn to them for a variety of reasons, but we actually have within us social bonding hormones that connect us to other people. It's why loneliness is a problem for us. Solitary confinement as a containment strategy in prisons can do a number on us emotionally. We need social interactions in order to be healthy. Animals are part of that. We crave interactions with nature and animals. So that gives us a head start in doing the right thing for animals, but it's easy for us to get brainwashed. It's easy for us to dismiss the concerns of animals. And what we try to do with animal wellness action is remind people of the immense threats that exist, whether it's factory farming or horse slaughter or testing on animals that's needless and duplicative or trade in wildlife.  Yeah, true. So what is the scope of the organization? Are you worldwide? We're worldwide and we're pretty new, we're three and a half years old, but we have some of the most veteran people who've ever worked in animal protection. And again, it's all animals. We certainly do a lot in the United States Congress working to advance probably 20 or 30 major new policies like we're seeking a ban on mink farming.  There's been an incredible circumstance where we've learned that mink are the most susceptible mammal to the COVID virus, the SARS-CoV-2. There have been outbreaks of this virus at mink farms throughout the United States and all over the world. This is a threat to keep these animals on factory farm-like conditions and especially outrageous that we're doing this just to produce mink coats when we don't need them. We have other textiles we can use to adorn us, keep us warm, keep us stylish. Almost all of the pelts that we raised in the United States are being sent to China because there's no domestic market for these pelts. But we work on so many things. We're working to create an animal cruelty crimes unit at the Department of Justice, the US Department of Justice. We're working to stop war slaughter. We're working to stop needless testing on animals for drug development when there are new alternative innovative methods that can improve the safety and efficacy of drugs. So it's big. We work at the state level and we work internationally. We've got a very important campaign called kangaroos are not shoes. The largest mammalian slaughter in the world is the shooting of kangaroos by commercial shooters. And the main use of the kangaroos is for their skins or shoes by Nike, Adidas, New Balance to make soccer cleats. Two million kangaroos killed a year, including 400,000 joeys for the babies who are found in the pouches of their mothers after they're slain. This is outrageous that fortune 500 companies like Nike and Adidas would be sourcing wild animals from their native habitats through commercial kills. Like what we did to the buffalo or the bison in the 19th century in the mid section of the North American continent. We massacred bison to produce coats and other products. That's what the Australians are doing right now with kangaroos to make shoes. And companies that all of us have patronized like Nike and Adidas are in the thick of this. They're the ones driving the killing, even though they're not pulling the trigger. Are you into poaching in Africa? Oh, without question. We're actually helping Asian elephants now because in Thailand there are more working captive elephants there than any other country in the world. And about 3,500 of them are conscripted into taking tourists around with 12 tourists on their back or they do circus type tricks. But when the pandemic hit and Thailand shut down tourism, those elephants haven't had people to support them. They're starving. So we are supporting Thailand-based groups to feed elephants and we're feeding about 1,200 elephants right now. But in Africa it's a different set of threats. It's more poaching, as you know. There's also legal killing through trophy hunting where Americans go over there and shoot elephants for their tusks.  But then we're allowing these United States rich hunters to go over there and shoot elephants so they can bring back the tusks. I find that terribly inconsistent. I think it is an attack on nature that these people shoot the largest land mammals in the world just for their egos and to mount these tusks in their homes. So yes, we challenge so many forms of institutionalized cruelty for the state in the sense the government or major corporations are causing harm to animals. And again, they can't speak up for themselves. We have to be their proxies and that's what we do through the courts, through the lawmaking bodies, through the court of public opinion, by publishing science-based reports, by publishing investigations. We did a major investigation that we released in September about cockfighting in Hawaii and how the cockfighting community is enormous in Hawaii. And it is a spoken hub relationship throughout the Pacific Rim that birds are shipped to Hawaii from Asian countries and shipped from the mainland US to Hawaii. Then to go to these Asian countries and there is significant illegal cockfighting activities on the islands in Hawaii as well. It's illegal to ship a bird from Hawaii. It's easy to find it. It's easy to determine that somebody is trying to do that. So question is, is there anybody trying to stop them from shipping? Well, Jay, it's a very insightful comment. I had worked to make it a federal felony, not just to fight animals in the United States. It's a federal law, but also to possess animals for fighting, to transport them to use the US Postal Service. What these guys do in Oklahoma and Alabama and California and other states is they pack birds in boxes, these fighting roosters. They're very strong, tough animals and they send them to the Philippines or to Guam or to Vietnam with Hawaii being the stopover point. It's also the destination for a fair number of birds as well. But this is illegal, but the United States is not doing enough to stop it. We provided incontrovertible evidence. A lot of these people are so arrogant that they openly discuss on Facebook and other social media platforms their sale of fighting animals, their participation in fighting derbies. There's a big derby, the biggest one in the world called the World Slasher Cup in the Philippines and cockfighters from throughout the United States go to the World Slasher Cup. These guys talk about it. If you're a good cockfighter in their parlance, then you win at derbies. And if you win, the offspring of those winning animals go for sometimes thousands of dollars. It's just like horse racing. If your horses win on the track, then you can sell the offspring to other people interested in competition. That's what happens with cockfighting.  And there is global trafficking in fighting birds. The United States is, without question, the cockfighting breeding hub of the world. Most of the major successful cockfighters in the world are here. We are shipping birds from the mainland US to Mexico to the Philippines. Those are the two biggest foreign destinations, but they're going to 30 or 40 other countries, probably more. But Hawaii is really at the center. We got shipping records from the Guam Department of Agriculture about 18 months ago. And we then looked at them. There were about 9,000 birds shipped to Guam. Now, Guam is a small US territory, about 170,000 people in the Western Pacific. So this should not be a huge hub. 9,000 birds were shipped just to Guam. It's probably, I mean, it's hundreds of thousands of birds are being shipped from the mainland to the Pacific Rim every year. So this is just a small indicator. The number one shipping state by number of cockfighters was Hawaii with Oklahoma, second, and Alabama third. Oklahoma had the largest volume of birds. So the cockfighters that were shipped a greater number, but no state had more individuals shipping birds. Guam, all of it's a felony. Guam knows exactly what's going on, but the governor is a pro-cockfighting governor, and other politicians are basically defending cockfighting. We worked to pass a new law in Congress to forbid any shipment of fighting animals to the US territories in 2018. It took effect in December of 2019, so about a year and a half ago, and we've been investigating this trade and found that Hawaii was again, you know, central to it. The United States needs to do more to enforce our laws. US attorneys, federal law enforcement, whether it's the FBI or the USDA's Office of Inspector General or the US Postal Inspection Service, these birds are being openly shipped. We know what is going on. This is what was so distinctive about Guam. Guam has no poultry industry. They have no egg laying hen operations. They have no poultry operations, which are the meat birds. They have no showfowl industry. The only reason that you'd be selling 9,000 roosters to Guam is for fighting. And I personally went to a cockfight at the major venue on Guam. It's called the Dome. I was there. I was there way way back in the time I was in the service, and I was a concrete sort of a coliseum affair. There were a lot of bleachers and concrete benches and the like, right? And a lot of people, hundreds, thousands could sit in this place. And down at the bottom of it was the cockfighting ring. And they were calling out bets. I don't know if it still happens this way. They were calling out bets and waving money in the air based on what they thought would happen in the fight. And it was brutal. It was brutal, but people loved it. They were so involved in it. It was like a national sport in Guam. And I said to myself, I didn't stay very long. I really couldn't tolerate it. But I said to myself, what is going on here? This is really not Guam, and yet it is Guam. Is that still happening? Well, it's amazing, Jay. You went because I went to one of the last supposedly legal cockpits. It really wasn't legal, but the new federal law that really clamped down on it that cut off any pretense for it was enacted, as I said, at the end of 2019. I went in September, the end of September 2019. And yes, the bleachers were full. The folks were huddled around this little pit, they call it, that plexiglass around it. There's a dirt floor. And they've got a board in the back where they list the birds and the fight schedule.  And yes, they were screaming and hollering and people were enjoying this blood sport between animals. I mean, think of all of the forms of entertainment that exist in our world, whether it's live entertainment or it's digital entertainment, or it's audio entertainment. Yet these people find the need to engage in animal fighting when it's a felony offense. So the dome closed. But I've just gotten reports recently that they are back at it. And Guamanian authorities are not doing anything about it. The United States needs to do something about it. We have the United States Attorney's Office in Guam and the Northern Mariana's Islands, based in based in Guam that covers the Northern Mariana's. And, you know, the United States has law enforcement officials who are in Hawaii, they need to take that eight hour flight to Guam and stop this open defiance of the United States. Why do people do this? Is it cultural? I mean, I would imagine some cultures like it more than others. And there must be something in the culture or something in, I don't know, Schadenfreude comes to mind, you know, of sort of enjoying the demise and the pain and the atrocity. Well, I'm wondering if you've ever looked into why people go to a fight like that? I have looked into it and I've thought about it a lot. There's no single answer because everyone is different. But I think that we humans, you know, have conflicting impulses and instincts. And I mentioned I wrote a book called The Bond where I argued that we have natural instincts to be fascinated with animals and that fascination can lead to compassion or that fascination can lead to abuse. I mean, the people who are interested in cockfighting are really interested in the birds. They love the look of the birds. They love the toughness of the birds. They call it gameness, the characteristic of the birds that causes them to fight even when they're injured. So these people are really dazzled by the birds, but they have no compassion for them. I mean, they're fine to see them get hacked up, animals that they raise, you know, for months or years. We should explain that on the leg, or maybe it's both legs, I don't remember, of the given fighting cock, they attach a knife, a very sharp razor sharp knife that sticks out 90 degrees from the leg of the bird. And the bird, if the bird brings his leg up like that, you can slash the other bird. And they, they eviscerate themselves that way. They do, Jay, you're correct. So the type of fight is defined by the type of weapon. So it might be a short knife fight where the knife is about an inch and a half, or it might be a long knife fight where the knife might be two and a half with three inches, or it could be a gaff fight. A gaff fight is like a curved ice pick. So they shave down the natural spur on the rooster's leg, and then they strap the knife or the gaff with a leather strap onto the bird's legs, and they weigh the bird. So they're supposed to weigh the same, they've got the same weapons on, and that's supposed to, you know, be the fairness of the fight. The handlers have them and they, they put the birds beak to beak multiple times to incite them and to enrage them because these are territorial animals.  So their instinct is to be aggressive toward other roosters. They stoke that, and then they put them down and they fight. And usually the fights don't last very long because the weapons are so lethal. So they could gouge them out. I thought you had a minute or two, right? It's not very long. Yeah, some of them that go long, they, they pull them out of the main pit and they have side pits, which they call drag pits, and they finish the fight there. But most of the fights that I saw were just, you know, one to three minutes. And, you know, they results in one in one of the fighting cocks dying. They die, they fight to the death. Yeah, they fight to the death. They get stabbed. They, you know, get lung wounds. They get other heart wounds.  Think about risky practices. You know, we've just gone through a terrible global pandemic and that pandemic probably related to a live wildlife market and another form of mistreatment of animals where animals are taken from the wild and, and brought to live wildlife markets so people can buy them where they're often butchered right in front of people and they eat these wild animals or they're taken from the wild and they're put in cages and then bred and then brought to the live wildlife market. That is a dangerous circumstance for zoonotic diseases because 75% of, of all emerging diseases come from animals and they jump the species barrier. So here you have a behavior where birds who basically have influenza and that influenza is the type of influenza that afflicts us when we get the flu. They could be hatching a new form of avian influenza that can jump the species barrier and here you have a perfect set of interactions to transmit. Oh, you're right. We are, we are making a movie about this very same spillover effect and relationship with climate change and COVID. But let me, let me go, let me go to the next point which we really should cover and that is Molokai which I guess falls in the county of Maui and you made a report and ultimately the authorities arrested some, some people who were involved with cock fighting there and, and I guess we're going to see now what happens in terms of the prosecution. Can you talk about that so people know?   But as I said, it's a federal felony to fight animals, possess them, ship them, trade in the fighting implements. So my hat is off to the local authorities who are enforcing the law. It's the tip of the iceberg in Hawaii.  If you drive around the big island or you drive around the other islands, you see these birds.  There's no other logical explanation for it. As I said, it's a hub and, you know, I knew, I knew a fellow on the big island who had his backyard, which was substantial. He had cages where he, he raised them and bred them, hundreds of them. That's the way it works. Yeah. I mean, he was one of a number of people in the network that did that. It was a side job for them. Yeah. No, there are hundreds and hundreds of people in Hawaii doing it, perhaps thousands. Honestly, it sounds like an exaggeration to say thousands, it's not. When there was an outbreak of virulent Newcastle disease 20 years ago in Los Angeles County, Southern California, it's a big county, a lot of people, a lot of land area. Authorities went door to door because they were trying to contain this avian influenza that could affect commercial poultry operations, pet owners, et cetera. They went door to door and after they were done, the Calvary Department Food Nag and USDA, the U.S. Department of Ag, said there were 10,000 backyard cock fighting operations in Los Angeles County alone. Hawaii is one of the hubs in the United States. So this recent raid in Molokai is very important. It really needs to be just one in a series. And these people will get the message of law enforcement cracks down, and especially if the feds crack down because it's a federal felony. Well, do you expect that's going to happen? So this was in Molokai, this was part of Maui and it was, I guess, the prosecutor had to be involved and there were arrests and maybe the first time or the first time in a long time that that happened. And I think it's in part due to the report that you wrote about the existence of cock fighting in Hawaii. And what strikes me is, will there be more? And will the feds look at the state action here and take their own action? Because it sounds like they could. I think with animal wellness action on the case, certainly yes. We're not going to let the United States just be in the tentative to this issue. This is a form of animal cruelty. It's a threat to our global health, because of the global movement of these fighting birds and the potential rise of a new emerging avian influenza. It is often associated with other criminal activity, not just gambling, but it's very often bound up with narcotics traffic, human on human violence. I mean, people who are watching and enjoying these fights, are they just going to be a good neighbor to you in general? I doubt it. And I think that we have good reasons when we stop animal cruelty, we make our community safer. The people who are involved in dog fighting are often very violent individuals. We need to stop these for the benefit of the animals, but also for the benefit of our communities. I think it's a secondary effect of gambling. Can you talk about that? Gambling is a widespread activity, but it leaves a wake of people who lose their assets, who disrupt their families. I had a family member who was a compulsive gambler, and it was horrible for the family. And I see it time and time again, and then of course, if you have gambling debts and you could get involved with organized crime, it really can spiral from there. So our organization is not per se an anti-gambling group, but I've seen it. And I think that, again, this is not a form of legalized gambling. We have legalized gambling with casinos and with lotteries and even with horse racing. We don't have that in Hawaii. It's odd. It's ironic that cuckbody exists. Gambling is a big motivator for people to participate. At the same time, gambling here is illegal, flat out. Yes, right. That's right.  It is bound up with it as much as you have the knives and the gaps on the birds. No one would be interested if the birds didn't have knives and gaps on their legs. No one is interested in cock fighting if you're not gambling. So what about these arrests? Where do they go from here? This is a, I mean, you're talking about sending a message, but the message needs to have a conclusion. It needs to have a conviction and a punishment, assuming that these allegations are true, which I mentioned they are. What happens now? And what will you, Animal Wellness Action, do to follow that story? Well, we will be communicating with the district attorney, taking the case and offer expert witness backup, because we have experienced people, one of the most experienced people in the United States, the most experienced person in the United States in looking at animal fighting crimes. So we can say, hey, these are all the telltale markers of this. Don't be hoodwinked by this notion that, oh, I just have these birds because I'm showing the birds in derbies and meats. It's just not true. So we will write to the district attorney and offer support. Again, we're going to urge the legislature, as we did in September when we released our report, to adopt felony level penalties. That's a real deterrent.  There is just no reason to threaten your freedom for this frivolous form of entertainment, where animals are killing each other in front of you. It makes no sense for any civilized person.  These prosecutions and any other prosecutions, your efforts in the Hawaii legislature to make it a felony offense. And for that matter, the state of affairs in terms of animal cruelty, cock fighting in Hawaii, I think it came off the plantations for a lot of people. It was a popular way to spend your time talking about entertainment, but there's no reason for it now. And if there was a time when you could accept it, that time has long passed. It cannot be accepted and I admire your organization, your work. And I hope we can circle back with further developments nationally and that affect Hawaii. Well, I thank you for that really clear statement and recitation of the problems with it. And I really believe that the vast majority of people know that it's wrong. But without awareness, without action, these people will persist. Yeah, it's an interesting name you've got for the organization because it includes the word action. And it means we're not kidding around. Wayne Pacelli, animal wellness action, executive director. Thank you so much for joining us, Wayne. Jay, what a pleasure. Thank you. Aloha.


My name is Muhammad al-Shaybani. I am from Yemen. I came to India a while ago I was referred to Manipal Hospital by a friend. I had two cases, my mother and my wife Both of them had knee issues. My mother had osteoarthritis and she had quite full, total knee replacement for her, both knees. My wife had meniscus tear in her left leg and she required also arthroscopic surgery. Both surgeries were done by Dr. Simuq Muad. The surgeries were really successful. Before the surgery, my mother was hardly walking or hardly able to walk. My wife also had severe burning in her leg and she wouldn't even walk for a hundred meters. So all the complications have disappeared after the surgeries. My mother now is able to to to practice or to continue her lifestyle as usual. My wife also is continuing her lifestyle as usual with no big issues. Later after the surgeries of the knee of my wife, a clinical examination showed that she requires a spine surgery also. She had lower back problems and she has undergone a successful lumbar spine surgery by Dr. Praveen Sawashe. She has now recovered fast. She is doing well. I mean no complications as previous and she is back to usual lifestyle as compared to the period before the surgery. All the complications have disappeared. Now she is just doing a few continuance of physiotherapy and things look great with her. In this regard, I'd like to take the opportunity to express more experience about many hospital services, staff, facilities. I mean it's outstanding facilities, supported staff, the services are marvelous. We have got the proper care here in the hospital. Basically we felt home and that's the basic term I can say about the hospital. I'd like to express on behalf of my mother and my wife, I'd like to express our utmost gratitude to doctors of Mar-Baskaran, Dr. Praveen Sawashe, their course surgeons, Manipal Hospital presented by staff and nurses and everybody who was in Manipal Hospital for their utmost care, kindness and support. Thank you so much.