So welcome to the third installment in this year's Health Law and Policy Seminar Series. I'm Sheila Wildman, Associate Director of the Health Law Institute. And it's my pleasure today to introduce our speaker, Dr. Hula Hughes. Dr. Hughes has been with the faculty of law at the University of New Brunswick since 2006. There she teaches criminal law and procedure, labor law, and jurisprudence. Before joining UNB, she practiced labor, employment, and human rights law with a focus on pay equity and taught at the University of Ottawa and Queen's Law School. Her work as counsel has included appearances before the Supreme Court of Canada and federal court of appeal. Prior to her call to the bar, Hula clerked for justice Ian Vinnie of the Supreme Court of Canada. Hula's research interests and published research is very diverse. And rich, encompassing human rights law, comparative constitutional law, criminal law, access to justice, and administrative justice. Much of her writing, as well as activism, has been dedicated to feminist advocacy, in particular in the area of reproductive justice, which we'll hear more about today. She addresses the frustratingly timely, untimely topic of access to abortion in the maritime. So we're very lucky to have Hula with us today to address this important ongoing social justice challenge. Hula. Hula, thank you so much. And thank you all very much for coming and being interested in a topic that has been preoccupying me a little bit since I arrived in New Brunswick in 2006 and has preoccupied me a lot. Since it became clear earlier this year that the Morgantala Clinic in Fredericton was going to close. I want to take you back to April 17th of this year and imagine you're standing on the lawn of the legislature in Fredericton. There's a whole bunch of protesters out there, ranging in age from about 14 to about 80, protesting the state of abortion law in New Brunswick in 2014. I'm chatting with a woman who's probably about 20 years older than I am, who says, I am outraged, we fought this fight in the 1970s and 80s and we won. We should not be here today. This is not the fight that feminism should be engaged in in 2014. And she felt and so did many that somehow this struggle was untimely business. And there was a strange parallel between that experience and an experience a few months earlier where I was at the clinic and it was a Tuesday morning and it was clinic day and the women who worked at the Morgantala Clinic and I were standing in the front office of the clinic that looks out onto the street and there is a gaggle of protesters out there protesting abortion. And we were joking that between us inside of the office and the folks that are protesting on the other side of the street, none of us could produce a baby if we tried. We were all completely past the age where that was a significant possibility. So both our protest in front of the legislature and the anti-choice protest on the other side of the street had this vague, untimely out of the chronology of advocacy feel to it. In the past few months we've probably seen more advocacy and engagement over the issue of reproductive rights in the province of New Brunswick than we've seen in decades. And included in that has been some national media attention to the struggle in New Brunswick. And some of that media attention has brought about one of the most successful fundraising campaigns to support abortion access in the Maritimes that we've ever seen. But with it also came a set of observations that Maritimes I think are used to to a certain extent which is this allegation that we're just a complete backwater, that we don't get it, that we are retrograde somehow in our approach to women's rights in a country that fundamentally understands itself as being committed to gender equality and being committed to abortion rights. And what I want to do today is actually try and disrupt that national narrative by doing three things. I want to talk a little bit about the state of abortion access in North America broadly speaking. And before I get to that I want to talk about the history that took us to the present situation. And I want to start in the movement towards decriminalization. And for looking around the room for some of us that's actually remembered history and for many of us that has studied history at best or maybe it's a romp into a history you haven't seen before. And secondly I would like to flag some components of what has been the mode of abortion advocacy in this country related to decriminalization and beyond particularly surrounding the two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 and in 1993 in both cases involving Dr. Henry Morgantala. And third and maybe most importantly I would like to get us started on a conversation about where to take the legal analysis and the advocacy for improved reproductive justice. So this is the bitter history part or the fun history part. In the early 70s Simone de Beauvoir publishes in the Nouvelle Observateur a manifesto the manifesto of 343 sluts. And these self-avowed salop or sluts confessed to having had an abortion. And a picture gallery of some of the women who were signatories to the manifesto appear on the front pages and that's what you see in the top right there. This act of self-accusation was mirrored very shortly after in the same year in Germany where 374 women signed a similar manifesto confessing to an abortion. I say confessing because in both cases in France and in Germany this was admitting a criminal offence at the time. I want to highlight a couple of things about these picture galleries that you got as part of the publication of these manifestos. Both the French and the German examples include women across a range of ages and so some of our experiences standing on the lawn of the legislature is actually replicating the experience of the early 70s in Europe. This was an issue that engaged women across a range of ages. They included women depicted as mothers and that was interesting because one of the ongoing complicated conversations are between the fact of abortions for women who are already parenting children and the sort of the stereotype of the woman who is accessing abortion to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood. And they also included a whole lot of celebrities. So in the case of France they included the actress Catherine de Neuve, authors like Maghri Tira, François Sagan and Monique Wittig and other cultural icons of that period. Giselle Halimi who was a well-known lawyer of Tunisian descent was one of the very few non-white contributors to that debate at the time. And the lineup in Germany was equally illustrious but in both cases they also included a lot of rank and file activists. In the places that I've mentioned and in others these political campaigns were highly successful and in part they were highly successful because the message was so relatively simple, get rid of all abortion laws. And they were successful in decriminalizing abortion at the very least typically in the first trimester. And that was true in Canada as well. We see decriminalization coming to Canada in 1969. The Trudeau government amends the criminal code, introduces a method for obtaining a legal and funded abortion through accessing the therapeutic abortion committees. And those committees of course then become problematized in the 1988 Supreme Court case. But I think it's important to remember that they were the result of considerable liberalization of abortion access in this country. Unlike in Europe, North American abortion advocacy has always had a very significant involvement by physicians. So we see the early movement in Canada essentially being led by the then Chief Coroner of Ontario Morton Schulman who started to publish an annual report in which he accounted for the deaths resulting from botched abortions every year and that became a major motivation for abortion law reform. That introduced I think a bit of a tension in abortion advocacy that we haven't quite overcome yet which is the goal of decriminalization in part in many places was to also seek de-stigmatization of abortion and it's probably the one goal that's been the least successful. I think abortion continues to carry enormous stigma despite the fact that we've now had a very long history of decriminalization. And in some ways the European celebrity approach was somewhat suited to de-stigmatization. It was hard to maintain the level of stigma in the face of self accusations from women who were very well recognized. The Canadian experience highlighting botched abortions in some ways is more consistent with stigmatization because it highlights the marginalization of women accessing abortion and so it frames abortion in a different way and it also changes the dynamic between the involvement of doctors and the involvement of patients. We move from the early victories to a period in which we actually see a lot of retrenchment internationally and in Canada. So the therapeutic abortion committees turn out to be not as much of a blessing as might have been hoped because implementation is really uneven across the country. Some hospitals establish committees, others don't. Some hospital committees apply very restrictive standards, others are fairly liberal and this is really in significant response to an anti-choice movement that becomes very well organized and that adopts the pro-life label early on to good success. In Canada we don't get complete decriminalization as you probably know until 1988 but in 1988 there's this great moment of success where we now become a country that becomes known globally as the country that doesn't have an abortion law and that was of course one of the flagship victories of feminist advocacy and rightly celebrated for that fact. At the same time 1988 was a bit of an awkward moment to be winning this particular fight. Internationally as I suggested we'd seen some retrenchment. The move for decriminalization was essentially over and what we're seeing instead is a splitting of the abortion issue in a prohibition component and a funding component and courts and legislatures in a variety of jurisdictions that we might look to for comparators splitting the difference in that particular way upholding decriminalization but accepting as a constitutional limit on abortion restrictions on funding. We see that in the United States through the so-called Hyde Amendment. We see that in Germany as a constitutional compromise and that situation of course is then going to inform also what happens in Canada. So in some ways 1988 was a little bit late. In another way 1988 was a little bit early. It's hard to think of an issue that should resonate more with gender equality than abortion access. But in fact in 1988 equality law in the Supreme Court of Canada is really nowhere. We've only had three years of experience with Section 15 total. The idea of substantive equality doesn't make it to the Supreme Court until 1989 and remains really underdeveloped there for a long time. Some people would argue it continues to the present day to be somewhat underdeveloped. And feminist organizations are not organized really to meet the multiple challenges that come along with this particular set of issues. So we see LEAF for example not intervening in Morgantala either in 1988 or in 1993. The feminist perspective is carried by Dr. Morgantala and by Corral the abortion rights organization. And as you know the equality claim associated with the challenge to the criminal court provisions fail. The fail equality doesn't resonate. What resonates is Section 7 security of the person rights. A highly individualized conceptualization of what abortion access is all about. As a movement I think we own some of that problem. We were not maybe quite ready for the issue in the Supreme Court. The court had also developed its approach to the charter in the first six years since 1982 really in line with the original articulation in the Trudeau era as a liberal rights paradigm that conceptualized rights as essentially being freedoms from state interference. So Trudeau in the proclamation ceremony remarks says, I speak of a country where every person is free to fulfill himself or herself to the utmost unhindered by the arbitrary actions of government. And in that concept there is very little space originally and in its implementation four freedoms that can only be realized under the protection and with the assistance of the state rather than through maintaining an absence of state interference. There's a profound class bias and a profound gender bias in this particular understanding of rights. If you buy all of the latest books the question of whether the public library has enough money is much less on your mind than the question of whether the state maintains a censorship list that makes it difficult for you to buy the books you want to buy. The particular problems that arise with respect to abortion access under a restricted funding model are not terribly visible to people who don't typically rely on state support for services. We know that the interests of women in the state actually differ from those of men and they relate along the same lines that I've just described with a greater interest in governmental services and a lesser interest in absence from interference on average. That's not to suggest that women don't have liberal interests in freedoms. That's just to suggest that the balance between those different sets of rights may be a little shifted. So we get to 1988 and it seems like all is well and as I suggested Canada is being held out as this great jurisdiction where everything is free to go. No longer a criminal law in the Gutmacher Institute which is a big think tank in the US that deals with abortion rights. To this day holds out Canada as this wonderful example of the best form of law. Well and then we get to the Maritimes and I know there's wicked too much text on these slides and it's more for me to remember what I wanted to tell you about then for you to necessarily look at. But one of the challenges that arises in the wake of 1988 is that the provinces get into the game of regulation almost immediately as the feds are forced out of it. And unlike the feds who only had one voice to speak with and who could be challenged in one forum each province takes a slightly different approach and every challenge has to be replicated in slightly different ways in each of those provincial settings. And I'm just going to go through and tell you a little bit about the three Maritime provinces and the approach that they took. So in Nova Scotia we see the passing of regulations that prohibit abortions to be carried out outside of a hospital and also regulations that restrict funding for non-hospital based abortions. The initial regulations then become transposed into legislation fairly soon thereafter because there's rumblings in New Brunswick that regulations may not actually do the trick. And in 1990 when the Morgantala Clinic opens here in Halifax there is almost immediately a set of prosecutions initiated under that new law against Dr. Morgantala and he has an opportunity in the course of that prosecution to challenge these new laws that were enacted and the regulations under them. And in October of 1990 so within the same year those laws are struck down at first instance and that is ultimately upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993 so that becomes the Morgantala 1993 decision. But in fact the Nova Scotia courts had done that work as early as 1990. That in Nova Scotia pretty much clears the deck and allows the clinic to operate and to provide a funded service. But I want to flag that despite that in 2003 the clinic here closes and the official line is that it closes because the hospitals are offering the service and there's no need. But the back story to that is that it was just not a viable business because the funding that was provided was the funding for a very narrow slice only which is the physician's time. There was no funding unlike in Ontario. There was no funding for clinic security. There was no funding for counseling. There was no funding for the premises, any of that stuff. New Brunswick, slightly different story. I love this picture. I don't know whether you can see very well but it's like the ultimate Canadian protest standing on a snow bank. This is earlier this year. So in New Brunswick we get immediate regulation of the funding piece but we don't get new legislation that restricts the provision of services in hospitals because guess what? We don't need that. We already have that in New Brunswick at the time under a quaint statute called the Medical Act. And the Medical Act was a private statute that set up the College of Physicians and Surgeons and it was under that statute that there was a prohibition against non-hospital-based abortions. And when the Morgan-Toller Clinic opens in the province in 1994 there's no funding under the public statute and there is all these rules about funded abortions in the public regulations but there's also the prohibition under that private act and it's under the private act that a prosecution is brought by the College rather than under the enforcement of a public statute. And in defending that set of prosecutions, Dr. Morgan-Toller isn't able to challenge the constitutionality of the funding piece. He's only able to challenge the prohibition piece. So even though the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993 struck down in the Nova Scotia case both the funding and the prohibition component of the Nova Scotia law that precedent doesn't track in New Brunswick because of the slightly different way in which the prosecutions are initialized. Dr. Morgan-Toller had also initially won a case in New Brunswick requiring the province to pay for abortions provided to New Brunswick women in the Montreal Clinic and even though he won that case the province just didn't pay. So initially it didn't seem like a good plan to spend more money on litigation pursuing the province on the funding piece given that it was reasonable to assume that there would be non-compliance. Dr. Morgan-Toller has another kick at that can starting in 2002 so he brings suit to challenge the funding regulations and he initiates with that a standing battle to end all standing battles. The province fights the claim hard not on the merits because within the Department of Justice it was perfectly understood that this legislation was unconstitutional but they fight it on the assertion that it requires a pregnant woman seeking to access abortion rather than a physician to actually challenge the regulation that is about physician funding so it's a little confusing but it takes until 2009 for the New Brunswick Court of Appeal to confirm that Dr. Morgan-Toller did in fact have standing by that time he spent almost a million dollars on legals and the litigation comes to an end because of both funding issues and because he's now a very old man. So the clinic for the entire time between 1994 and this year operated as a private fee-for-service clinic and women had to pay in order to access services there at least that was the official story the inofficial story was that women in fact were funded but by Dr. Morgan-Toller personally if they couldn't pay and that gets us to Prince Edward Island and my personal hero Colleen McQuarrie who's been doing fantastic research on the island about the experience with the lack of abortion services on the island rather depressing research but very important so PEI takes a slightly different approach to this whole phenomenon again and in 2014 they say we have a policy and we know what it is but we're not going to tell you and that sounds strange except that it follows exactly what they did in 1988 when they told Dr. Morgan-Toller when he was first sort of making noises about maybe providing abortions to PEI women that they wouldn't pay because they have a policy that they wouldn't pay and it takes Dr. Morgan-Toller correspondence over the following six years to actually get answers to what the policy really says but eventually he gets a letter and the letter says that it will only pay the province will only pay for an abortion deemed to be a medical necessity provided that the abortion is performed at a hospital so far so unsurprising. The determination of whether an abortion is a medical necessity for payment purposes is determined by a medical advisory committee of five doctors provided for under the Health Services Payment Act and appointed by the agency. Does that sound familiar to anybody? Does that not look somewhat like the scheme we thought we had found unconstitutional in 1988? It looks like that to me. Anyway, that's what happened. We had this policy and Dr. Morgan-Toller challenges the policy in the Prince Edward Island courts and on the eve of the hearing the province converts the unwritten policy into a regulation through executive council order and so the hearing is off because all the legal work that has been done to challenge this phantasma of a regulation now is worth nothing because we now have an actual regulation to challenge. So that's in fact what happens and the PEI court in first instance allows the application and strikes down the regulation consistent with I think the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1993 but then in a decision that I thought about but I will invite your help on this can't quite make work with the precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal allows the appeal and says that it is in fact constitutional for PEI to have this regulation restricting funding. The bottom line is that there is no abortion care on the island but through political mechanisms there is now a policy of reciprocal billing not between Nova Scotia as a province and the province of PEI but between the province of PEI and the TPU here in Halifax the termination of pregnancy unit. So that is an agreement that allows PEI women to have a funded abortion here in Halifax but only if they have a referral by a PEI doctor and that turns out to be a complex task I probably don't have to say much more about that so that's sort of the federalism piece if you like of abortion litigation, post-decriminalization but what's happening in Canada in some ways parallels what's happening in other places in North America in that we get this split between a community of people who benefited from decriminalization because funding the service was not a problem for them and a community of people for whom that is the key problem and who are seeing that the advocacy that went into the decriminalization is not being backed up by an advocacy movement that challenges the funding restrictions. In the US this has given rise to an extremely hostile situation of people saying two things one, white middle class women should get out of the business of abortion advocacy because they simply don't understand what it's really about and secondly, lawyers in particular should get out of the way because this is a political issue that affects racialized communities predominantly and that is being advanced under the label of reproductive justice and in Canada we're seeing an interesting and I think highly Canadian way of absorbing some of the ideas of reproductive justice but in a manner that seems much less hostile and in which the role of lawyers I think is at the moment still kept fairly open so we have maybe this golden six months or so to redeem ourselves. So this is the new face, right? The new face of reproductive justice advocacy is racially diverse, is focused on access and is fundamentally fairly uninterested in law. Think about where we go with all of that so this is a picture from the US. Essential elements of reproductive justice advocacy replacing the paradigm of pro-choice advocacy is that it invites a much broader conceptualization of reproductive rights. Looking not just at abortion access but looking at for example the right to parent recognizing that for economically marginalized people that has been the overwhelming issue. Engagement with child protection agencies deprivation of the right to parent and stigmatization of the choice to parent under the welfare queen set of labels. I think in Canada we can do interesting solidarity work when we think about our first peoples and the way in which the state has consistently interfered with the right of first peoples to parent their own children. The second essential component of this movement of reproductive justice is to think about access. We're really inheriting a fundamental principle of feminist advocacy over the years which is that we have to pay attention to what's actually happening in peoples lives. And what's happening in peoples lives is that despite the fact that we don't have prohibiting laws we still don't have good access and many of the reasons for the lack of access are economic. We have a new focus on intersectionality and this is one of the ways in which the fact that we're not in 1988 and that our equality law toolbox has really grown quite a bit is going to come in a very helpful manner. Intersectionality is a really helpful tool for understanding how reproductive justice interacts with racialization, how it interacts with people in the trans rights movement, how it interacts with notions of indigeneity and parenting access, all of those kinds of things become really important. And a focus on advocacy that is really interested in impact rather than theory I suppose. So if we were to rethink our advocacy in these kinds of terms what would that actually mean if we think law has anything to contribute going forward? That's sort of the last question I want to address. So can we think about reproductive justice in terms that remains alert to these other components of reproductive choices that people make? The pro-choice movement has been conspicuously absent from the struggle of indigenous people trying to parent their own children. We've been absent from the whole discussion about adoption. We've been absent from the discussion about access to contraception because guess what? Most of us as we're sitting in this room either have student insurance coverage or we are employed in some way that gives us pharma care. We have paid very little attention to the plight of those people who can't afford access to contraception. One of the challenging pieces at least to me because as I told you before I'm an old person is that we really have to rethink some of our feminisms in all of this. Abortion rights has always seemed sort of fairly safely essentialist. It was probably the one place where we felt that the femaleness of the body and the femininity of our gender come together in a pretty meaningful way. And now in this reproductive justice movement we're seeing that notion challenged by female to male trans people who say we're part of this movement. We have a stake in an interest in reproductive justice and our issues may include abortion issues but they probably include things like forced sterilization schemes and they probably include immutability concerns. Can we make space for that in our advocacy? I think that's going to turn out to be a really important challenge and one where the movement has the potential to be split along very strong generational lines and so I think there's work that needs to be done. A small way of illustrating some of the difficulties is when we had a postcard campaign in Fredericton earlier this year we wanted to use Henry Morgantala's lovely quote about every mother, a willing mother, every child, a wanted child on our postcards. And old farts like me thought that was a great idea and every person in their 20s in the room said can we replace mother with parent? And all the old folks went no! Don't you remember Trumbland Daigle? Don't you remember what that means when we start talking about parents? What we really mean is inviting the boyfriend into the conversation. No good can come of it. So we're going to somehow have to reconcile the fact that we clearly do not and I just point to the social media disaster of the past week clearly do not live in a post-feminist society with the fact that we now have a significant trans community that is laying what seems to be a fairly valid claim to an interest in reproductive justice. And I don't think we've thought that one through and certainly I haven't thought that one through but I think this is going to be a major task for us. And lastly I think there's a very considerable concern about developing a theory of rights particularly equality rights that somehow makes a space for socioeconomic rights and somehow makes a space for protective rights while addressing the perennial concern of our courts and particularly the Supreme Court of Canada that we do not allow equality rights to essentially rewrite our entire legal system in a completely unpredictable way. There's a lot of theoretical work that will need to be done to accomplish those tasks. An additional layer to this challenge ought to have become clear when I talked about the versions of regulation in the various provinces and that is the layer of the interaction between equality rights and federalism. It was really fantastically interesting to see that in 1988 and in 1993 the equality concerns that were articulated were essentially inter-provincial equalities and we never got any traction on that and not surprisingly because actually it's hard to advance a theory of the charter that says the charter means that we can't have working federalism that we can't have provincial differences. That's not a sellable item and the courts have been very consistent in rejecting that vision of the charter and appropriately so because we continue to also be a federal state. But we need to therefore be able to articulate a theory of equality under the charter that is respectful of federalism on the one hand and that engages with the intersectional piece that I talked about earlier. So somehow we're going to have to make a shift in our thinking about equality from talking about New Brunswick is really bad and Ontario is really good and women in New Brunswick ought to have the same rights as people in Ontario which is still the dominant discourse to figuring out how we can talk about rights in ways that actually give meaning to section 15 while being respectful of our federalist commitments. I think we are going to have to rethink the interaction between physician advocacy and legal advocacy particularly because the contest between clinic-based abortions and hospital-based abortions takes us down a path of fighting for the protection of public Medicare with one arm and fighting against the protection of public, against the curbing of private healthcare on the other. We're taking inconsistent positions within our own advocacy. But there's a second problem with this which is a change in the way abortions are being provided globally. We're seeing a lot more medical abortions by which I mean pharmaceutically induced abortions and that doesn't track the clinic-hospital divide and it may not even track the physician-provided abortion because we're seeing a lot more safe self-inducement. And as a movement I think we're going to have to figure out whether we're going to continue the current discourse of saying self-inducement is always horrible and the wrong thing to do to figuring out whether there isn't a role for self-inducement in many cases and what are the kinds of care models that will work with that global reality, the global reality that even now in 2014, despite the fact that we haven't actually legalized it, you can get abortion drugs on the internet and women are self-inducing. But there's not terribly good information about that. So we're seeing two problems. One is that women are using methods of self-inducement that are not safe when there are in fact methods out there that are safe and the other problem is that we have very uneven distribution of information and we're using scare tactics within the movement of reproductive rights to steer people away from something that may actually turn out to be extremely helpful in getting broader access. The motto of the protests in New Brunswick this year has been we have the law, we need the access. And that's a lovely slogan because I think it reduces to a level of simplicity what are in fact some fairly complex legal claims. The question that I think is open in this sort of space is whether we do in fact have all the law that we need and whether we have the absence of all the laws that we need to be absent in order to have access. And that's going to be the challenge going forward. Thank you very much. I think the opportunity to... Thank you. Let me just, before that, announce our next seminar coming in the series. It's Friday, November 21st. And we have Jennifer Chandler coming. Her title is Rains on Trial, Neuroscientific Evidence in Canadian Criminal Cases. So thank you. You love for your reaching. Let's put it at least the way I'm experiencing it. Thanks, you look for your richly textured lecture ranging so expertly from concrete on the ground insights about social facts as well as institutional practices here in the Maritime Ambient Month but also to theoretical and strategic insights about next steps. So with that, thank you.


up culture by the way there's a particular website that I visit now and then check out a video or two and it's got these ads that run on the right side it's got a lot of ads yeah but these ads the one is don't chao call an ugly woman a desperate woman why and you can have sex tonight why that's pretty man need sex to beauty beauty is skin deep but ugly goes right to the bone oh my god sexual norms revolving around more casual uncommitted intimacy say their research is sometimes misunderstood to mean that sex is newly rampant on college campuses instead LaSalle University Associate Professor Kathleen a Bogle likens the change to switching romantic scripts with the dating script it was like I'm going to date someone and that might lead to something sexual happening whereas with hookups it's the other way around said Bogle author of hooking up sex dating and relationships on campus that might be why college students are increasingly likely to have had sex with friends or casual dates other studies suggest where do they find these friends casual days these hookups that they're a book on how to hook up friends I don't I don't oh oh they have friends yeah yeah friends and they eventually do things and they they probably go to private in-house parties you know they probably go to private get-togethers and they and this so they they might maybe they meet people through other friends friends of friends of friends of friends that might be why college students are increasingly likely to have had sex with friends or casual dates or study our studies suggest young adults have been pushing off marriage until later in life many students eager to forge careers and have adventures see peril in a relationship that could limit their opportunities well it's only peril if that's what you want in your life if you want if you want to play the field then don't don't get serious and don't get married you know don't act don't don't say you want a relationship serious relationship and act like you're single or unattached you know if somebody wants to be seriously involved in a real love relationship there's nothing wrong with that you know but as far as marriage goes and the piece of paper the contract the marriage certificate and the ceremony many people today obviously do not keep their marriage vows and treat their marriage like it was just a piece of paper so a person can be George Bush could say that the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper what the hell is a certificate of marriage a lot less a lot less that piece of paper it's a piece of paper which means that a person who is very really loves you and is devoted and and stays with you you know the clock is the calendar is proof of you know the sincerity of the love the person stays with you over the test of time and they're with you through thick and thin and the marriage certificate is not important because I know people who had the marriage certificate and the vows taken it didn't mean anything it went out the window well Phil of the Duck Dynasty the patriarch of the clan he was not married to Miss Kate they're married some 40 years or whatever so the other day on the show they got married well Gene Simmons of the rock group kiss was a cohabitating yeah the tongue tongue man lengua back back oh the tongue is still black what are you turning into a chow dog I don't have a black had it for some time and I'm thinking that maybe just maybe it might have something to do with the catalyze do you so I just ruptured taking do you have any discomfort with your tongue any any any pain or discomfort see that's that's something you got to be concerned about by getting back to examples hey Sharon Shannon Tweed former playboy I guess playmate of the year has been was his main squeeze for many many years and they were there were a couple they were unmarried couple but there were a couple nonetheless they had children right and then I think they got they decided to get married because Shannon Tweed kept on pressuring him and but hey it's just the the legality of it if you if you're with somebody long enough they call it like common law wife right common law relationship yeah so a lot of the laws that that are involved in a real marriage take effect so so so speak but but but the point is it's paper as long as the person is with you only time tells as the record which is our local paper yes noted in a recent editorial the United States Postal Service is an American institution well worth preserving that's true the Postal Service older than the country itself mm-hmm and rooted in the Constitution today provides Americans and their businesses with the world's most affordable delivery service it's also the centerpiece of a 1.3 trillion dollar national mailing industry employing 7.5 million Americans in the private sector including 265 thousand 193 in New Jersey the unique Postal Service network contributes in other ways to our society including the city's readiness initiative under which letter carriers volunteer and are trained to deliver medicines house-to-house in major metropolitan areas in the event of a biological attack I'd like to see you PS do that yes they're lucky they can they can deliver regular packages normal packages letter carriers also conduct the nation's largest annual single-day food run the second Saturday each May this year Bergen County letter carriers collected an extraordinary 800,000 pounds for distribution to local food obviously the ones that Christie cut yeah cut the food pantries but you can tell Christie's food food supply was never cut carriers nationwide collected one quarter pound of food per person generous Bergen County postal customers donated nearly a pound on average this is timely because school food programs don't operate in the summer northern New Jersey letter carriers have led the nation 20 straight years in raising money for the muscular dystrophy Association letter carriers official charity and as New Jerseyans experienced in Sandy's aftermath letter carriers are key to normalcy and stability in difficult times yet the Postal Service faces financial problems this is getting back to what I was telling Billy yeah I know the question is how to resolve these problems in a manner that preserves this important institution rather than dismantle fit to figure that out requires understanding what the problems are and what they are not the red ink doesn't stem from postal service provided by the public to the public by the Postal Service not door-to-door delivery not Saturday delivery nor is it caused by the internet related rise in email communications if that sounds counterintuitive look at the facts in the first quarter of this fiscal year for example the Postal Service had a net operating profit of 100 million dollars the Postal Service took in 17.7 billion dollars in revenue from selling stamps the agency is self-funded and hasn't had a dime of taxpayer money in 30 years now they have a website where you can print things from it yeah post office and it's spent 17.6 billion dollars delivering the mail those expenditures include every expense facing a typical business workers pay benefits trucks and fuel buildings and maintenance etc and the revenue side takes into account the impact of the internet such as lowered first-class mail volume because of online bill pay what about the many people who can't afford a computer and to pay for internet and and who live in rural areas that rely more on their postal deliveries while first-class mail revenue declined 2% package revenue rose nine percent as more folks ordered items online people are shopping online more than than in person actually because you save money you know it's it's convenient and and the prices are better yeah online shopping is it's going to replace the retail store this performance is all the more impressive given the lingering poor economy and yet as was widely reported the Postal Service had a 1.3 billion dollars in red ink in the first quarter why because of congressional interference so congressional interference in 26 Republicans lawmakers mandated that the Postal Service pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years and pay for it all within 10 years no other company or agency is required to pre-fund for even one stinking year the right wing is sure want to impoverish Americans no and they want UPS and Federal Express and DHL to own the business of the post office that's what they want I want to privatize everything correct that unfair burden which is about five point five billion dollars a year accounts for 100% of this year's red ink and in some quarters as noted above actually wipes out what otherwise were profits Congress created this mess what else is no and can Congress should fix it well not the Republican Congress unfortunately they don't want to cooperate with anybody some lawmakers want to use the very financial crisis they helped bring to the United States post office to dismantle an institution that millions of Americans and small businesses rely on rather than addressing pre-funding they want to degrade service by ending home delivery by eliminating Saturday delivery and more remember people just don't get it like you're talking about the two-party system they just don't get it yet the Republicans are evil they are evil not just the second party they are an evil party and many many individuals and some of them very intelligent individuals just don't get it they and it goes over their head or they or they change the subject when you try to tell them how evil Republicans are with the capitalistic system it's an evil entity well and it goes over their head or they just don't want to accept it most Republicans tie up capitalism democracy of their their idea and religion together well these three things are secret it shall not be criticized yeah well you are not patriotic I had a I had a one day to this week I think it was Tuesday when I met with Billy Morrill in town he he said to me I was I was talking something I was talking about something with the the people we know that work at them at the local McDonald's I usually you know Billy gets his he goes there in the morning he gets his free egg sandwich they give a lot of coupons out so he gets his coffee it's right right near the Holiday Inn by the Teterboro Airport so all the all the pilots from the private jets go to stay at the Holiday Inn so he gets to meet a lot of muckety mucks so anyway I meet him in the afternoon I get my my large strawberry shake with no with strawberry shake topping topping I don't want whip I don't want that hydrogenated fat cool whip whipped cream fake whipped cream in a maraschino cherry so I says top it off with milkshake strawberry shake topping which is kind of sounds funny but they anyway we sit down I find out that dr. Oz was at this McDonald's that same morning filming so I go up and I get some I needed some napkins because they don't put out napkin dispensers anymore you know I guess people a lot of people are taking home napkins so anyway and I'm telling one of the young men that we talked to a lot about dr. Oz he said to me on his own hey did you know dr. Oz was here I didn't I didn't even bring up Oz's name so I says yeah I know dr. Oz was here and if I was here and he came up to me and asked me a question I tell him exactly how I feel dr. Oz okay promotes the use of vaccines but he would not allow his children to receive vaccines okay so the gentleman behind the counter says that sounds hypocritical yeah he's an hypocrite corporate corporate corporate horror for a big pharma big pharma whore and even though he has a TV show because when he had a TV show about about anti-aging you know what his prescription for anti-aging was he didn't mention anything about antioxidants or vitamins minerals or herbs or anything he says Botox injections so I know he's big pharma anyway dr. Oz so Billy Moro says to me ah so you wanted those troublemakers you sound like a troublemaker I says no I'm just a very honest straightforward truthful person he says oh no you got to bite your tongue and especially in the business world and business business yes you do what do you like to say that word business so yeah you got to bite your tongue I said why do you have to bite your tongue in business I says you bite your tongue in business now this is what I try to explain to you all the time if you wish to get ahead in that world yes you do have to bite your tongue in that in that world yeah but where else do you actually get ahead you know aside from the business world sorry does that include the Hollywood and entertainment industry and like if you're on a talk show well it only goes so far well there are listen there are controversial people in controversial celebrities that speak their mind to an extent but to an extent that's correct in other words if they start to expose and buck the establishment that helps pay them there you go then there's a problem right and there's a problem you know like and you also got the problem if let's just stay in the religious sphere for a month let's say you were preaching the kingdom of God from the Bible and what is in the Bible etc etc right well according to this world you will only be a certain amount of success but you will not be large yeah okay as Luke 32 12 says you won't be accepted into the into the established religious circle correct the fold the fold so though you may let's take for instance that God's church today they're on television on radio they're in print etc etc but are they mainstream no and they won't be they won't be you're talking about the people that make up the original church of God doing what is in the Bible telling people what is in the Bible etc etc you will not be a success in this world so but if you're one of those phony baloney prosperity preachers you'll have a mega church you'll have a mega church 10,000 people and if you believe in the the blessed spring water like Dr. Peter Popoff and you know lay in the hand have somebody having somebody faint and pass out right in front of you you know and they're and you're cured you're miraculously cured because of laying on the of the hands you'll you'll you'll get millions of dollars in donations right exactly if you're evangelical and you believe in getting funky and boogie in and church and born again and born again jumping up and down with your arms waving hello kissing snakes dancing with taking up serpents taking up serpents up their ass whoa but then you're accepted hey look Charlie Sheen most likely told the truth about his producers of the show two and a half men but he got fired from two and a half men because they didn't like well spoken uh little too outspoken they don't like what he said only let him go too far with that being able to attract warm bodies for commercials you know when you start failing in that area you're not on the street so if you're like you're a business person or you're a celebrity and you suddenly say hey you know all these commercials that you see late night TV all these infomercials most of them are a bunch of lying nonsense so crap your say you start you to buy some you start rocking the boat rocking the boat rocking the boat exposing exposing people just like if Barack Obama told what the 100% absolute truth when he's on national TV okay then which will expose corporations then the people that gave gave him money for his campaign draw it right away would they would they would cease cease to exist and the same thing would happen to Hillary Clinton's campaign her run for in 2016 right yeah if she came clean with her husband at her side and told everything you know what I'd like brother Wiener I saw I've been I like his commercials for he's running for mayor of New York City Anthony Wiener he did a great job as congressman for New York State no congressman for the United and he was in Washington representing New York State not the state no he fought section of the section he did a lot for the little guy he fought hard for the little guy and you know and he did his job when it comes down I like I like brother Wiener when it comes down to it and I have a little more to finish with this okay okay finish it up Mr. Wiener Mr. Hot Dog didn't do anything wrong the man just he just texted to some chikarini's and showed them pictures of his dingaling he never it's a form of fetish he never he never committed right adultery per se per se per se he never got you know there was no sexual contact per se per se so you know what did he do that was wrong now if his wife was really against it I think a woman would put the man through hell if he just went on and did it on his own anyway I mean if she really was against it she's married to the guy whatever they went into therapy supposedly and they did this and they both accepted it so bingo plus she what did the guy do wrong I think she wants to be the future first lady of New York City possible possible she saw promise in her husband's career which has a possibility but then again it upset Hillary Hillary's all upset about it I don't know what she don't want to be tainted in any way she's already tainted because they're gonna conservative they might drag drag a Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton again yeah but there's a big difference the point is there may be a big difference but again once you get rid of all the other bullshit involved in it what did he do wrong he sat in front of a computer and he typed and sex and so what and he sent I guess he took these pitches when his wife was in home maybe obviously obviously but what did he do wrong he just engaged in a form of sexual fetish play a little a little internet play sexting play play you thank you he didn't he didn't bang anybody no or or do oral nobody or get a hand job he didn't even get a date hand job wasn't had a song on the hand job just a hand job yeah that was a song right the video I saw a long time the former proposal is as you point out a confusing and unworkable idea that would compel New Jerseyans to traipse around the neighborhood to cluster boxes in inclemented with instead of you having your mailbox out front here they would have a whole bunch a bank of mailboxes out there by the highway and you'd have to walk there every morning get your man because they they want to cut they want to cut down the workforce in other words it would take longer for the mail carrier to deliver if the mail but if you had to go to each individual apartment and each home and and stuff the box well in their apartments most of the apartment they do have that downstairs in a lobby they have a cluster boxes and the mailman just puts the mail in each box so the post office would require less mail carriers to do the cluster and you know it's all calculated to destroy the US post shrink shrink shrink shrink government agencies vote his phone today somebody's trying to fuck somebody's trying to fuck with us meanwhile stopping Saturday delivery would raise costs for small business which are open on weekends and would have to contract with expensive private carriers New Jersey small businesses employ 1.7 million people even from a strict financial stand point degrading service is counterproductive it would ultimately destroy the postal service by driving customers and revenue away New Jersey's representatives in Washington have a choice they can degrade service to the public and send the postal service on a downward spiral or they can fix the pre-funding fiasco so folks can continue to receive the services they have counted on for decades privatization in the long run always fails well not making the god you know the people will get that privatization rich up first like in Iraq like I told you a wet dream for the conservatives over there okay privatize the water or the electric grid like Haliburton did get privatized they didn't go around for a month like you're working take the money and run and that's what they did they did it in Columbia South America that's why GW Bush was so palsy wowsy with the president of Columbia back then everything's privatized it's all it oh if you're poor if you don't have health insurance and you go to the emergency room and you and you don't have health insurance and you don't have you're not roll you don't have you don't have money to pay you die outside you you sometimes you got to bring your own supplies you get to buy your own supplies you know you got to pay for every little fucking thing every little thing is out-of-pocket expense there's no government agencies there's no welfare there's no nothing nothing it's all privatized everything is out-of-pocket expense well it's all taking money from down below and putting it up above and guess what happened there's no middle-class there's only the ever-growing poor getting poorer and the top percent getting rich getting richer and no middle-class and this is exactly the Republican wet dream that we are talking about and it failed in Iraq did yes all you need to supply but a big yeah for it's it's job that it was supposed to do but it did make the contractors rich and that's what it really was supposed to do to help the greedy pieces of shit that's that the fat cats on top that's the only positive thing that happens is to make the the already filthy rich even richer that's it doesn't help the mainstream doesn't help the the masses was it was Spock used to say on Star Trek the the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one what well that's what a progressive would say that's democracy that's democracy but but the Republicans but I am reversed that reversed that but I am ran and the Republicans know it is self-interest it is all about self self-interest me me me the get with me me me the getaway of life I I I you know and I mean I I know Billy Billy moral grew up in a corporate environment his father was a lifetime IBM executive that traveled the world he grew up in the corporate environment his dad was his role model and I understand he just can't demonize corporations like we can and and the politicians that help corporations and you know that's his choice but we got to tell it like it is you know so which what do we got there it's a it's not four o'clock yet is it are you kidding it's quarter five well then your clock over there is a little spot that says quarter to five right then we're out of here correct okay people thank you for joining us for progressive discussions it has been very invigorating to say the least and summer is almost to the end where they where they call it when it's hot closer to fall indian summer hey yeah hi yeah hi yeah hi you doing how you doing say goodbye to these people


In this video, we're going to learn how to build our own self-driving AI on the Raspberry Pi in under 100 lines of code. But before we begin, let's take a look at how the AI will actually perform. Now, there are quite a few approaches to actually building this self-driving AI. The first is a classical robotics approach. In this approach, we can use techniques such as lane filtering, color and slope gradients, masking, perspective shifts and other techniques to essentially figure out the curve of the lane based on basic computer vision and determine which direction the AI should go. Although this method is pretty robust, it doesn't provide the AI an opportunity to learn and improve over time. The second approach is called behavior cloning. Now, as the name suggests, behavior cloning is a technique where the human performs the action and then the AI learns how to perform the action. In this case, the human will drive the robot around and the AI will normally learn how to drive the robot but also to abstractify features and try to understand why the human was driving the robot the way they were. This ability to abstractify is actually what makes this AI so powerful and will allow the AI to drive in situations it's never seen before. Based on this information, I choose the behavior cloning model for this AI. Now to actually train the AI, I use something called the blink app which allowed me to remotely steer the robot as it learned. The blink app also let me toggle between the learning and the performing modes. The blink code setup is very straightforward. Make sure you copy the correct authentication code from your phone. Make sure you have the correct virtual pins for your event handlers. And lastly, make sure to include the blink.run function in your forever loop to ensure that the event handlers can update properly. Now let's dive into the actual heart of the AI. This AI is actually powered by convolutional neural network which allows this AI to see. Here's the code for the neural net. It has three pairs of con 2D and max full layers followed by three fully connected layers. The last fully connected layer does not have an activation function since we're trying to predict the steering angle. When the AI is in learning mode, the AI will actually take an input image from the webcam and it will process it through this convolutional neural network into a steering angle. Now this predicted steering angle is actually compared to the human's input or what the human steering angle is. And based on the difference, the AI learns using the atom optimizer. We can see these steps in the code. In the learning mode, the AI will get the input image which is also known as the state. It will also get the human's actions using the observe action function. If the action is valid, it will learn from the action and then see if the weights. Let's take a deeper look at the functions. Here's the get state function. This code collects an input image from the webcam and here's the learn function. It learns based on the human's actions using the dot fit method. When the AI performs autonomously, this process is mostly the same. Again, the AI will take a stream of webcam images, it will make a prediction on where to go and it will just act on it rather than looking at the difference between the human input. Jumping to the code for the act function, we can see how the AI makes a prediction using the dot predict method. Now let's dive into the actual hardware of the robot. The robot is powered by a Raspberry Pi and two brushed DC motors with encoders. The Raspberry Pi and motors get powered via a LiPo battery whose voltage is stepped down for the Raspberry Pi. The Raspberry Pi gets its camera feed from a simple USB webcam. Let's end this video by talking about some of the changes you can make to improve this AI. The first biggest change we can make is giving this AI memory. By giving this AI memory using techniques such as experience replay or memory buffers, this AI can be more sample efficient and also train on batches which allows for faster training and learning. Giving the AI memory will also enable us to do data generation. Data generation involves techniques such as flipping the image so you have both steering angles as an input or perhaps cropping the image a little bit, changing the lighting by making the image brighter or darker and then learning on these new artificially generated images. Data generation will allow this AI to learn faster, be more sample efficient and also abstractify its learning to better environments. The third improvement we can make to this AI is borrowing some techniques from classical robotics like lane detection and learning based on a lane detection using behavior cloning. I've already implemented some of these improvements such as memory in a new improved version of the code. The original 100 line code and this improved version are both available on GitHub for download. Thanks for watching.


This past weekend my roommates and I, Dr. Ed, Nurse Natasha, Gary Gray, and our Butler Hans all crammed into the Bloodmobile, headed to the theater to check out Pearl. Bloodmobile?  I rode in the trunk. Pearl is the prequel to the movie X, which came out not even a year ago. How did they make a prequel so quick? Ty West and Mia Goff came up with the idea as they were developing her character while shooting X. How come you didn't ask us to be a net review? I covered it when it came out really dug it, so of course we all have to sit down and talk about Pearl. This movie is directed by Ty West. He co-wrote it with the movie's lead, Mia Goff. The plot is very simple. It tells us the story of how Pearl was pushed off the deep edge, turning her into the woman we met 60 years later in X. So what do we think of the movie? The cinematography was beautiful. I love the acting. I like the farmhouse with the animals.  Come on Ed, have some class. Good kills, good gore, good effects.  I can see the future of horror in this movie. Now without giving away too many spoilers, let's talk about some of the things that makes this movie really special. First off is the setting. This movie takes place in 1918. Ah, the year I crash landed on this planet. That's like over a hundred years ago. Just think about that a hundred years ago. How different were things a hundred years ago? I remember. I'm a hundred and fifty. Not one gray hair. But at the same time, this movie does a great job of reminding us how much things are actually the same. There are still cars and trucks and airplane. There's still movie theaters, pornography and booze. There's still war and violence and a pandemic. Because it takes place in 1918, the Spanish flu is sweeping the country. Are those people wearing masks? Not the stylish as me though. I had the Spanish flu twenty times. This is a great device to make us, who never lived a hundred years ago, invested in this time period. Because we've been dealing with the same thing for the last two goddamn years. We know what it's like to feel the fear and the isolation and what that does to your mental health. All of this has something to play in Pearl's ultimate downfall. She should have come to me for some shock treatment or lobotomy. The movie mostly takes place at the farmhouse, which we're introduced to in X. This is owned by Pearl's parents. She's living with them while her husband is off fighting World War One. Her father is in a catatonic state and they're constantly having to take care of them. And again, this is something we can all relate to.  I know what it's like to take care of rotten people. The cinematography in this movie is really fantastic. It is a beautiful looking movie, just like X. But it's also a very different looking movie than X. It's not dark and moody and full of fog and mist. It's bright and colorful. Most of this movie takes place during the day, which again for a horror movie is very unusual. But it's realistic as not all bad things happen at night. The characters in this movie are fantastic. Of course, Pearl is going to be a great character. There's no denying that. But all the side characters are great too. Pearl's mom, the hardworking German immigrant who just wants the best for her family. Pearl's mom's a hard ass, but looks like she makes a mean stew.  And how do you handle that?  And when I mean explosive, someone starts on fire. The dynamic between Mia and her mom is awesome. You can't wait for a good cat fight. The projectionist at the theater that Pearl has a little fling with is another great character because he's multi-dimensional, the several layers to him. On the surface, he seems like just a sweet guy. And then you find out there's a bit of a seedy side to him. Back when being a projectionist was a skill. There's Pearl's sister-in-law who is the complete opposite of her. She's the blonde, beautiful, perfect American looking girl. I think the dad was the best actor.  You can't have great characters without great acting. The acting in this movie is amazing. And a lot of that falls on Mia Goth's shoulders. She pretty much carries the movie and does a fantastic job at doing that. There is one scene in particular where she delivers this long monologue. And there are no cuts.  This may be the best acting job done by a lead actor in a horror movie. If she doesn't win an award, I'm gonna riot. The subject matter in this movie is great because it's something we can all relate to. Mental health. And wanting to be somebody special. Wanting to be somebody different. And trying to escape the shadow of your parents. Who didn't want to be someone special and famous when they're growing up? I'm sure all of us wanted to be something more than what we are now when we're kids.  I wanted to be a gynecologist.  I wanted to be a dancer. I wanted to be a famous actor or musician. Now I'm doing this. And that's where Pearl starts to snap. When she realizes that she can't necessarily fulfill her dreams. Isn't that something we can all relate to? How many of us actually get to live out our dreams in full? Barely any of us. So there's a bit of Pearl in all of us. But most of us have the ability to cope with failure. Pearl does not. And that is basically the straw that breaks the camel's back. And again, that's something we can all relate to is failing. We've all failed at something in our life. So this movie is very relatable. I can't think of another movie where you can relate to the main murderer as much as this movie. I really hope that this style of movie is the future of horror. Because it broke so many cliches. Most of it doesn't take place at night. There are no jump scares at all. Not one jump scare. Thank God. I don't like jump scares. Jump scares. Who needs them? The main character, the slasher, let's say, is a human that we can relate to. That we care for. That we're invested in emotionally. Who we actually want to see succeed. Not at killing. But actually beat the temptation to become a murderer. This movie for me was such a breath of fresh air. Because it tore down so many stereotypes. One thing I can nitpick about this movie is the ending. I thought it was a little abrupt and a little anti-climactic. Give me another five minutes to show how some loose ends were tied up. Even if it was during the credit roll, I would have been happy with that. And I had the same issue with X actually where the ending was a little bit too... I don't like when she kills the animals. But I like when she kills the people. Also Pearl's long monologue, as amazing as it was I felt it went on a little bit too long.  So cut down the monologue a bit. Give me a few extra minutes at the end. And this movie would have been an A plus instead of just an A. So yes, short and sweet. This movie was brilliant. Go check it out. I've seen some complaints about this movie saying it's too slow. I love a slow burn. And I wouldn't even call this movie a slow burn. Because it's more of just a character study. That's not a slow burn.  So if you want to see what I think is the future of horror movies, don't hesitate. Go check out Pearl. And I can't wait for the X sequel. Okay, we've talked long enough. This is supposed to be a short review. Now watch my dancing!


Cooks within the local school feeding program have been cooking up a storm, owning their culinary skills to make meals even more appetizing and nutritious for the young ones within the local education system. The challenges experienced locally in achieving this mandate include a lack of variety and diversification in the menus provided at schools, heavy reliance on processed imported foods, limited number of school gardens to support school meals, and a lack of infrastructure and equipment. These challenges, according to nutrition consultant with the FAO, Uthalia Filgens, are being tackled head-on by this Mexico-Caricom FAO-funded Cooperation for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience in the Caribbean project. She says the Sustainable School Feeding Initiative is an essential element under this project. The whole goal is to have all the schools have uniform menus and the menus will include a vegan option and also it will have at least three options per day so the cooks can choose from those options and therefore the children will have variety in what they eat and they will not be getting all the foods or everything every time the same thing. We also want to look at presentation that's very important especially for children they want to see their food pretty so we're looking at color, texture, variety of those things in order to ensure that our children eat when they are giving the food and the food does not go to waste. The school feeding program in St Lucia and indeed the Caribbean region have long been recognized as an important tool in the facilitation of learning especially for poor and vulnerable school children. Miss Filgen says when children's stomachs are satisfied then their minds are nourished sufficiently to accept learning. Tasting sessions performed by school children themselves are drawing honest opinions which will be used to facilitate adjustments to meals. What we've noticed is that a lot of our children are not getting a healthy diet is because parents are not educated even some of our cooks did not to show about education in nutrition so therefore we want to make that holistic so we're also having the parents we're having a part where the parents will be educated on how to cook for the children even the teachers will be included in that so that everybody are on the same page we're all singing from the same hymn book so we know that education nutrition means that and we also educate people on the nutrition policy for St Lucia. The program continues to stress on utilizing products grown locally providing variety in meal preparation while at the same time supporting the local market. So they will know how to make a dish with almost every local produce okay and it's very important that we use what we have because we want to include the farmers the farmers are also part of this project we're trying to get our foods sourced from the farmers so we were trying to boost the socioeconomic status of the of the communities by including them in the in this project. The Food and Agriculture Organization is also collaborating with the Ministry of Health and Wellness to finalize a health and nutrition policy for schools in order to promote within the school and home circles the requirements for healthy habits. From the Communications Unit of the Ministry of Education Sustainable Development Innovation Science Technology and Vocational Training I am Chris Satney reporting.


Antonio Brown going off the Rockers might have been one of the best things ever for the Steelers. Free! Now yeah, that's probably not true, but do you think the Steelers would have drafted Chase Claypool? If AB had simmered down a little bit and kept it together, stay down the Steelers? I don't know. I'll be honest, I didn't really know much about Chase Claypool until he had this monster game. Four touchdowns, 116 reception yards, four touchdowns. And I learned a few things. Round two, out of Notre Dame, he's six foot four. It's bigger than Julio, he's bigger than DK Metcalf. He has 92 speed. That is the fastest speed in this game other than one player, which is prime time. Boss Legend prime time is the only player faster than Chase Claypool. This is what a Megatron card would look like if it was still in the game. I'm really surprised. Yeah, I actually did this. I feel like that always fumbled the bag with Team of the Week, but holy shit, this card is so nasty, dude. I'm so excited for his abilities. He is one of the first wide receivers that I've found that actually gets red zone threat. My Julio doesn't get it, I figured he would.  It's awesome. But one weird thing I noticed is that his route technician costs three ability points and Julio's costs two. See, look, so route technician two, route technician three.   It's not that deep, bro, just make it simple. Also, can I just say, this is totally off beat but since this is gonna be, you know, we're gonna be in Steelers Unis for this, I drafted Levy, Abel, and Fantasy, okay? And the man just got cut.  I am so happy. Everybody called me a madman. Only called me a madman, man. For drafting, Vel. Just wait, man, just wait. All right, that's it, though. Let's hop in.  Also a huge thank you to Geology for sponsoring today's video. Geology makes an incredibly simple skincare routine which is absolutely something that guys overlook. I overlook this in high school really bad. So I've got here their starter set which has two bottles of the everyday face wash, a morning face cream, a repairing night cream, and an eye cream. My favorite part is Geology actually personalizes it for your skin type. You'll start with a 30 second diagnostic quiz. Super simple, but it's gonna benefit your skin the best that it possibly could. For example, right here, I put reduced blemishes or discoloration. I still get little acne spots that I just wish I didn't get anymore. All these products work really well together. So I recommend you start with a 30 day trial set. It's just two minutes in the morning, two minutes at night. That's all you gotta do to protect your skin, reduce wrinkles, and fight acne. I'll hop over and show you my routine right now. Got to look weird without glasses. I always start with warm water, get my pores open, face wash. Smells so good. So now I'm done with the wash, now I can just use the face cream. I get really dry skin like right here so I definitely need this stuff. Two minutes out of my morning for better skin. That's a good trade off. Highly recommend you check it out. There's a link in the top of the description. If you use my code MAHR30 at checkout, you're gonna get an additional 30% off. So make sure you click the link at the top of the description and enjoy the rest of the video. Chase Claypool, Lamar Jackson, Aaron Donald. We are capped 69 has the triple mu-masters. Let's see how this goes. Oh, that's a pic, that's a pic, that's a pic. Come on, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it. Shit. Run, play, run, play, come down, come down. Oh, ball rush! Oh! Wait, no, I just, wait, okay, it worked. It worked, it worked, it worked. I gotta take this ball down, actually.  I was hardly looking. Now here's the thing, sometimes with gameplays, you know, I mix things up, I try to throw it at different people, not today. I'm throwing every single pass that I throw to Chase Claypool. We are gonna run up his stats so hard that it's just unbelievable. Got the ball to start, stop and go. Ooh, that's a good thing he's like six foot forward.  Madden factors in, you're heighten weight before a hit. All right, so who's the corner that's on? It's not Trinevious White. So he's got that good Trinevious White. That means that the corner that's over top of Claypool, no way, that's a touchdown. Ah, Marcus Peter! Dustin! Dude, what do you expect? You're wearing the Giants uniforms. Come on, man. We don't have to go there. I mean, you're not wrong. So what, he's got two receptions at 80 yards right now? Ooh, he's tired though. Damn, he just came out of the game. This is the only play that's not going to Claypool because he literally just came out. Damn, Bo Jackson gets it, six to zero.  Dial back, dial back. Minka, Minka.  Whoa, whoa, get there, get there. Whoa, whoa! Cholamar? No, there's nothing to throw too. Oh, okay, wait, just don't let him juke us out. What's he gonna go with here? Honestly, oh, bull! I was gonna say, dude, because I didn't get my two-point. You should be kicking a field goal. All right, I am not on the right, dude. But we're gonna make a play anyway. Step up, step up! But you know what? It's similar. Is it open? Not really. But he caught the ball. We're just kind of impressive. Although he lost the yardage. All right, fourth and three, I'm gonna send him under here. I think he's gonna make this happen. I have to throw to Claypool though. Is the user? There's the user? He's gonna clear it? 92 speed. It's the 92 speed, bro, come on! It's the 92 speed, and me and six-foot guy down four! That's Larry Megatron, that truck. Oh my God. Just go catch it. Oh my God, did he just dust this man again? You're lying. No, that was a... That was a bad ball. Lamar Jackson. All right, let's play some defense. Verticals throw it here, throw it here. Come on, man. That's the classic. I'm griefing for Chase Claypool. Claypool yards right now. All right, Claypool. Come here, big baller. Oh, no, no, no, yes. Perfect, perfect! Lamar redemption swerve, easy. Oh, and I just needed to do one more. 145 yards passing. I think they're all to Chase Claypool. Yup, six perceptions, 145 yards. Dude, I really wanna hit him with this screen pass because he ran this in that game where I have four touchdowns. Yeah, this. He also is very close to activating double. Let's see if we can get this to work here. Yup, got the pass off. The user's there, it doesn't matter. I'll take seven. Claypool has been money on the underneath routes. Let's hit him one more. We're gonna block Bo Jackson. I think it should be there every time. The user's there, he can't get to me! 92 speed! And he didn't let up. He's just not fumbling. Claypool to the end zone. Claypool back in the end zone aggro! With eight seconds left. Oh, dude, he only has a touchdown right now. That makes me sad. Try this again, this wasn't even close to working that one time though. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.  Dude, I'm really getting myself into it. This is the inside zone. This is the inside zone, 100%. No, I said the whole gun. Stupid! I've officially gotten to cocky. It's time for Chase Claypool to take this game over. Yo, he's usuring straight over top of him.  He is straight over top of Claypool. Oh, no, he came off. Touchdown. I'm so over it.  Jesus. Claypool has like three tackles right now. Dude, it's not easy to throw one receiver but we're gonna win this game by doing it. I'm gonna follow him. I'm gonna follow him. What? I am right there! Why is I not a pig? No. Goes right over the middle. For an easy touchdown, not only do I gotta score but I gotta get the two point now. There's a lot of football left, baby. I'm not losing to the Giants. Oh, he's got it. Claypool can burn his man here. This is his moment, man. You got this, Claypool! Oh boy, he switched down at the wrong time. Oh my God. An instant response. We're looking at 14 to 14. If I can convert this, this is huge conversion. Claypool's got a double me activated but CV sends the blitz. There is a blitz. I'm throwing Julio, he knew. He knew and he messed it up. 14 to 14. Nothing is open. Oh, and Lockett just frees up at the end of that. Big hit, Minka. Oh, he's just marching down the field. We gotta hold here, boys. I need a QB spy. I gotta stop the run. A quick RPO. Oh my God. And Tia just got blocked for eternity. Dude, honestly, it's fine though because I think if I score on this next drive, I'm gonna go for two and I'm gonna get it. We're gonna take a one point lead if I score here. It just depends who he's usuring. He's probably usuring the safety that's over top. Yeah, he is. That's so corny. Let's see if we can hit the slant route. Second to three, dust it! Claypool, got it! Oh my God! All right, so there's the, oh no, there is no blitz. Shit, this is bad. I'm gonna bomb one up. Go get it, Claypool! Oh no, no, no, no, don't return it, man. Don't return it. He didn't blitz, but he did get edge pressure so I couldn't scramble either. Unlucky position. I don't think he'll be able to run the clock out though. I got three time outs and his run game has been very good. All right, I know he likes this route. He doesn't even get it, he gets sacked. Ooh, that slant has been open all day. That is too bad. This is a weird passing down. Well, that was definitely a mistake right there. Oh, oh, get there! How did he catch that? All right, there's his first run in a while. We got enough clock to not call it. Go get him. Go get him, let's go! Good stop. Huge down here, third and eight. Okay, he just throws a quick one drop, fourth and eight, clock is stopped. A minute 16, does he take the field goal? He does not take the field goal. Love the decision. I don't think it's smart, but I love it. Ooh, I'm on the wrong dude. I'm on Glover and that's an easy stop! God, they hyped up!  It was a bad pick, but it was a great stop. Ball of the 19, a minute nine, first and 10. We can win this ball game. So he's on Tyran Matthew. Ah, damn it. I tried to throw it B there. I didn't get it often time. He's triple teaming the guy I'm throwing to, so it's kind of tough. All right, we're just going to go RB underneath. First time I'm not throwing to the man, but it's got to be done if I want to win this game. I don't need something fancy. All right, we're just going to loft this over the top to Julio, who sketchy catches that ball. Okay, give me a spike, spike it. Why are we not in spike formation? Now I'm in a sketchy spot. Ooh, boom, bomb, clean ball, no!  Wait, was that a joke? What did I just witness? That was the game, right there.  Oh my God, Olson caught that. Oh my God, I just won.   It's possible I missed this. I don't think I did though. I think I drilled that. Dude, I just got instant double karma, Chase Claypool, we won!  Bro, that game?  Why did Greg Olson make the MVP play after Chase Claypool had like 600 yards? That did Webfort on fourth and eight and he lost by the field goal. So yeah, I had one total rushing yard but I had 397 passing yards. I couldn't tell you the last time I had that many passing yards in the game. So Gigi loved the vids. Hey, yo, Gigi my guy. All right, now let's look at these stats. So, my Lamar, 16 for 27 and for 418 passing yards. So how did we end up with 397? Did I have negative passing yards a few times? All right, so receiving. I didn't even realize it was this ridiculous. 13 receptions, 355 receiving yards. Average 27, three. Dude, he had less touchdowns in this game than he did in his actual team of the weekend. 178, rack and 89 yard reception. All right, boys, that was an absolute stunner of the game. I hope you enjoyed watching. That was, whoo, that guy's a freak. All right, boys, thank you for watching as always. Peace out.


Well, there's one problem regarding to this so-called cesspool, is that of Lost Episodes of Teletubbies. My god, where do I begin with this? I'm sure y'all heard about those old Teletubbies creepy pastas, such as the Playground and Seesaw. Those ones were a classic compared to the current ones that are just messy garbage. I'm not kidding. Ever since THX pastas, Teletubbies pastas on the so-called spin-pasta Wiki are nothing but cringe-worthy, unscary, fan-fiction-esque, rip-off, clichéd, plagiarizing, crossover stories. What we had in these stories were Lost Episodes featuring villains from popular movies, shows, and video games. It's just the same plot. It's just your typical Robin Horton-inspired Teletubbies creepy pasta, except it's intensely bad. I remember the time in the summer of 2021 that I made two Teletubbies creepy pastas based off of Slendy TUBbies, a slender-based horror game franchise regarding an infection in Teletubbyland.    And it's trash. Just like the two stories I made. Well in conclusion of this trend, I made my third Teletubbies creepy pasta in the spring of 2022, is Liminal Spaces. And it is the last Teletubbies Lost Episode creepy pasta that is last terrible, but not to mention the plagiarism of the aforementioned Slendy TUBbies pastas which ruins it. I soon moved on to something original, and disowned my three Teletubbies creepy pastas, along with my first THX Broadway trailer creepy pasta, which is heavily ripped off as of now. I once made an original creepy pasta about a Lost Computer animation from 1992, and that was a banger, even though it was a bit short. And no, it doesn't deserve a crappy sequel, because that will ruin the tension of being an original Lost Media creepy pasta. There's also The Line Guard, Fully's Inferno. It was the first ever Line Guard creepy pasta to have effort, compared to the only failed attempts from the now called Lost Episode creepy pastas wiki. It's basically the same plot, with normal kids DVDs having disturbing episodes, but with originality compared to the repetitive epidemic that kept going in spin pasta. The episode follows Fully the cheetah, getting trapped in a strange red forest full of horrific creatures, and it ends with her getting burned alive in a pit. Now back on topic with Teletubbies pastas. I have to disown those narrations regarding to Lost Teletubbies episodes nowadays, along with Luba, because I just had enough of this trend. They even begged me to do more of those Teletubbies creepy pastas that featured horror movie and video game villains, etc.   They just kept and reasonably requesting me for narrations of stories that had the same fate as Teletubbies and THX. They hugely did not care about my channel rules. At all. Like, at all, not in their lives on the internet.  This is why you have to let my channel be.  I came to say that spin-cost deserves a change from all this cesspool of dumb plot overusing crossover stories, such as THX and Teletubbies. Anything that is repetitive will be removed on this site. The screenshots I've seen in those repetitive pastas are so piss poor that it makes Sonic.exe look like a Hollywood creation compared, but I don't bear narrating anything regarding to Sonic.exe. In case if you're wondering, yes, I'm indeed, Tobicle Studios. Regarding to that name, my main channel is not that important from now on, because I seem to rarely upload random videos on it. Not to mention I'm done making shitty BFDI auditions edits like it's 2018, otherwise it will be a disaster. Just like how I make my crappy THX and Teletubbies creepy pasta narrations. I'm sorry that I got harsh over those spin-cost trends that sure needs to die off right now. That is all. See you later, my mature and chill viewers.