Wel, ond yn y toffy TV yw'r Y Everton News daily. Raffa Benitez had some positive news for Evertonians today at his pre-match press conference ahead of the blues trip to Brentford on Sunday. He revealed that Abdelagh De Corre a trained today and may be able to return to the Everton side on Sunday. It's a tough game away of Brentford, Everton in terrible form, just two points taken in the last 18 and the blues may feel that there's been missing. a phwaith eich gwasanaeth i'r butr yn dda, a gennym ni'n dod o'r butau, a sydd wedi eu gwneud am y gwaith yn y gwaith, ac mae'r gwasanaeth hefyd yn gyffredig fel ffërdog hwn yn gweithio'n gweithio'n ei bod yn meddwl, felly mae'r chyflion bobl yma ydych chi'n credu, fel y teimlad yn ychydig, fe eisiau archwiyno, fe gyd a nhw'n gweithio'n gweithio'ch gweithio'n offennodau'u gwneud. ond mae'n defnyddio gael ei wneud hynny o'r ddaf yn dweud. Y ddabie, wrth gwrs, mae'n fawr bod dweud yn ffwrdd y blaen, ac mae'n dweud aeth ag oedden nhw. Ysbrenffa game wedi'i'n gweithio, mae'n ddweud yn ddigon, mae'n ceisio yn gweithio, mae'n dweud hynny wedi'n gweithio gyda'r pwynt o'r ddweud. Ond, mae'n gweithio â'r coru hynny yn ysgrifennu, a phos eich gweithio, ond mae'n cael ei ddechrau i gweithio. y side is so much better with him in and you know things like set pieces with him being in the both boxes just the size of them gives you an advantage as well so good news that he may be ready to return to the side. Benitez also had more good news for Evertonians today with the news that Damari Grey a train today all being a light training session he limped off after 15 minutes at Manchester City there was fears that he'd done his abductor in and he's growing and will be out for some time so this is incredible news today really the manager refusing to rule him out for Sunday said we'll see how he is but he hasn't been ruled out yet which is which is mad to think that he may have a chance of playing and be unbelievable if he was able to play the weekend especially thinking he was going to be out for a length of time so hopefully Damari Grey might even be able to be in the squad for Sunday as well more good news there. Benitez did confirm that yet he mean that it's still out of the trip to Bremford though he's been training for the last couple of weeks I think it's a hamstring injury but he's not quite ready to return also said the same in Dominic Halvert-Lewin is doing his rehab but he's not ready to come back yet. Alan is a room of doubt although he's not being ruled out and Andre Gomez was all very quiet on him but it's thought that he may return to the squad this Sunday so Benitez did say we have got players returning to the squad for him injury so the more players we get back into the squad obviously the better we need everyone said that a few times but it's true we need everyone available and all hands to the pump at the moment because we're in a poor run of form for sure so we need to roll our sleeves up and battle our way out of it and Benitez spoke about John Philippe Gabammon's situation described it as complicated today he gave him his first start in over two years in the two wonder feet at Wolves he played the first 45 minutes wasn't in the game but he says kind of used that performance as the reason why he was overlooked in another couple of games said that he came on against the team he passed the ball really well and he struggled and then obviously the decision to bring Mason Holgate on against Spares were 15 minutes left rather than Gabammon had perplexed some people Holgate came on and was duly sent off as well and Benitez did seem to point to to Gabammon's performance in the Wolves games the reason why he didn't come on he did actually come on in that game Gabammon for the last three minutes of an injury time of course but was not involved well he was on the bench on Sunday didn't get on in that but he did say he's been training well today so we will see there seems to be a bit of a stuff that's coming out of the training ground a feeling at the moment that Gabammon's up and down still he's like really good one day and they're not so good the next and it seems as though he needs to find his level one thing we've certainly spoke about on this channel is giving him a couple of games in the 23s just matches just get a couple of 70 80 minutes under his belt in those games and then get him back into the squad that doesn't mean he can't be involved in the squad as a sub but get him some games because without him playing 90 minute games training will only do so much for you but I feel like you should be definitely playing a couple of those 23 games and then maybe we'll see where this level is a little bit more but that's up to the coaching staff that is it for the news day to give the video a thumbs up and subscribe if you haven't see you later


Welcome to NewsClick. Today we have with us Mr. Praveen Sonny who retired from Indian Army and then worked with India's premier national dailies and has worked with internationally well-known Jains international defense review for many years and since 1993 he and Ghazala Wahab 2003 sorry they started this force magazine which is a leading journal on security related matters. Welcome to NewsClick. Thank you Sonny. I want to discuss with you raise some questions concerning chief of defense staff which is the first major reform that has taken place in India's military. This followed the group of ministers recommendation which was headed by Al-Qaid Wani then to bring in a chief of defense staff. How significant is this reform for the Indian military? You see the short answer to this would be that any reform that you make has to be relevant to a time. Now this reform was suggested 20 years back as you rightly pointed out it was the deputy prime minister at that time Al-Qaid Wani who released the group of ministers report in February 2002 and that is where it was suggested that we should have a CDS for this as a single point advisor and it was suggested various things then was spoken about that how he will bring the trial services the services together. Now my point is that it's in 20 years because of the technology because of the geopolitics so much has changed. So my point is that is the CDS relevant today that's an important point that perhaps has not been debated enough in this country. Why do you draw this distinction between CDS as envisaged around the turn of the millennium to CDS that has been brought in in 2020. So the long in short is that because of China's rise because of Belt and Road where the PLA is part of the Belt and Road and today they have encircled us it has implications because of the technology that today we are talking about the fourth industrial revolution fourth industrial war which is the artificial intelligence war which is software driven war and this is where today China and China is our industry we have a disputed border with China 3488 kilometers disputed border now they are basically in the lead today they are competing with America. So when you see all these things and then this the most important part the CDS which has come today is a highly truncated CDS than what you rightly pointed out was envisaged so it has been tailored today CDS for a particular requirement which is certainly not the military requirement. Let before we come to that there are a couple of questions that have nevertheless been raised about the way in which CDS and the problems that some people some of the commentators have pointed towards. One of the reservations that has been expressed is that creating CDS a fifth department in the Ministry of Defense is adding another layer of bureaucracy how do you respond to that okay so is it so my responses required or not my responses it wasn't required but it is not bad I say that for the simple reason that now all the military matters have come under one head so today you see earlier what used to happen is that everything would go to the Ministry of Defense and we had those five departments we had the department of research and development then we had the department of finance then x servicemen then production and then we had the main which is the ministry of defense so I would argue that by creating this department basically now the channels have been more streamlined in response to the critics who say that a layer of bureaucracy has been has been added no I don't agree no I don't agree with that what do you think about the other criticism that that CDS as it's now being brought in may be army centric and that there is this there is this apprehension that some people that it will continue to remain army centric and the second concern which they have is that this may actually counter the attempts of the of the armed forces and particularly army to cut flap so to say so you see because the first CDS first CDS will draw the roadmap he will lay down the basic rules for the office so because he is from the army and that is one area which he understands better then he understands the efforts and the navy you see especially in our dispensation where there is their all compartmentalized functioning so yes to some extent they are right that he will set the army agenda when you set an agenda for three years then your successor will has great difficulty in obtaining that so to that extent they are right now cutting the flap see this has been my constant argument that if the army was to do its primary job which is defense of the country get out of counterinsurgency operation I have written in my book Dragon on our doorstep that we can easily cut 300,000 troops because CIOPS counterinsurgency operation we the Indian army got in saying publicly that we are there for a limited period and they have stayed for 30 years now so that is the problem where the flap has come in you wrote in a recent piece okay after the CDS was the first CDS came into being and I am quoting you that the first chief is likely to prepare the military to fight the wrong enemy wrong war with wrong procurement training and mindset unquote now these are this is a very strong statement you have made yes would you would you like to explain what you mean by this yes you see now the national narrative is national narrative I am specifically saying the narrative which has clearance of the government of India is that the threat to India is terrorism and terrorism from Pakistan correct I have consistently argued this is not the threat that we face terrorism is a manifestation of the threat which comes from the line of control the military line that we have with Pakistan so the threat is the military line and not terrorism you see so similarly the threat is from the military line with China line of actual control absolutely you see so when you get the threats wrong if you if you say that all right the threat is terrorism then you are looking at only counter terror operations nothing more than that you are preparing your armed forces to do that precisely what we did in the 2016 surgical strike so-called surgical strikes and the February 2019 Balakot air attacks these were below they were tactical level operations so my apprehension is that given his expertise for which he was brought in and he superseded two officers general Robert will get all the three services to be doing CIOPS which is not our threat so we are fighting the wrong this would this I mean it it sounds very reasonable what you are saying but the problem is that the government is also placing more emphasis on fighting terrorism than anything else yes so you see the reason is very simple it helps politically politically yes of course it helps for example who would argue or who would disagree that 2017 2019 balakot didn't help politically you see who will but if we just if you ask me that question in very brief I'll tell you what damage balakot has done to us you see so similarly in 2016 surgical strike it damaged us you see militarily so what is happening is there are two things today in India under the present government there is a political threat and there is a military threat and we today have a military man who is trying to project the military thing the the template on to the political threat so the consequences to my mind in my assessment I it's my considered opinion in the long term and long term I say is 10 years we can be up at a facing a very difficult situation for us so what where do you place the importance of general rabbits take on hybrid warfare where do you place that because he has been emphasizing the importance of that the Indian army and the Indian armed forces have to face a new form of warfare which is he calls hybrid warfare which is conventional subconventional nuclear cyber it's everything right rolled into one right so you see it's like this first of all this term hybrid war it's a american term it's nothing that general rabbit has created and hybrid is a very generic word it includes anything and everything you can think of which basically means that you've already diffused the level but what you have done out of that hybrid is where is the intellect of the officers and where is the focus of the top military leaders that unfortunately is on terrorism and unfortunately pakistan and that's why we see this attempt at you know opening up deradicalization centers which reminiscent of more you know 1950s and the brainwashing attempts vis-a-vis the youth because you're emphasizing entire terrorism hybrid warfare then you're hyping up the threat of radicalization of children as young as 10 to 12 years old and asking that they be isolated and put in education centers this is part of the same so you see it's like this it's like this when any army professional army gets sucked into a war which is a war amongst the people it is not a war with the enemy when you are fighting amongst the people then all these ills happen all the things and the Indian army has you know they have done sattbhavna which never worked sattbhavna was basically hearts and mind strategy how do we get people close to us the truth is kashmir is a political problem which can see the task of the army is you can bring the situation security situation to a manageable level thereafter the political process must start and let's be very honest kashmir is a dispute which is there with the united nations so whatever you want to say unfortunately is not an internal agenda you see having said that all this talk of radicalization you see it's not general rabat all our senior officers have spent the bulk of their careers doing ciops and they've been through all these phases it's only that he publicly spoke at the rishayana dialogue but in some way this has been going on because instead of acknowledging that look the people are alienated the people are alienated more alienated you say they are radicalized then you start looking for all these things you know you start looking for 50s 60s and what sort of a treatment to be given so whether the camps are there or they are not there i have no idea but yes i can certainly say that most of the things that been trying is basically a treatment for the wrong problem tell me one thing how significant in this context of what the general rabat now who's the first cds chief of defense staff and the previous army chief his position on hybrid warfare or fighting terrorism as being the major main task of the indian armed forces to the the new army chief who took over and his very first press conference in his opening remarks he made something very significant i consider and i want to ask you pose this question to you he pointed out that the army is army is engaged in counter insurgency and counter operations only as a short stint and that its primary role is to be prepared for a conventional warfare now this is not the same you know understanding that gets reflected from in what general rabat had to say how significant is this so you see this and how does it how will it now that you have a cds system how will it be possible for an army chief who wants to bring about this transformation and pull the army out i mean it i seem to be reading correct me i read it as meaning that he desires the army to pull out gradually from getting involved in internal wars so that it can put it focus back on the its primary role right so first of all what general narav name the present army chief said the other day i was there at that press conference i think it is absolutely positive and that is precisely what needs to be done not only that he went a step further and defined that war also he said look the future of war is the network centric warfare now you can agree with that or not that's a different matter but he defined that sounds very good but the problem is if you see the rules of business they've just come out i think four days back it was reported widely in the media i have come to the conclusion after reading all that that the cds today actually is now a super chief and i see the three chiefs the army fos navy as his vice chiefs because in his area of responsibility they have clearly spent out the government of india he is responsible for countess agency he's responsible for jnk he's responsible for the composition of the army what the army will do so basically what will the the army chief do as you rightly pointed out and i said yeah administratively having a separate department is good but operationally operationally when we say the word use operationally we are talking about preparedness it has not been good you see and the whole idea was to give him a lot of operational paths and a lot of administrative paths which impinge on operations for example he will decide the promotion of all two-star officers and above now if you place those people who are experts in ci they'll obviously continue doing ci countess agency so i mean i actually feel that general narabneh will go down in history i mean i'm i hope i'm proved wrong as a chief which actually wanted to do a lot but was helpless if you were to take a look at the way in which cds has been constituted and the kind of rules of business now that have been introduced uh where do you place cds then so and this whole reform that one you know that was being espoused for so many years i mean where does it leave us so as i said in the beginning which is a debatable part that whether cds is relevant today or not that is one part you know considering it is a army centric considering the air force is against it and considering the navy it is not applicable to the navy because navy in any case operates on the high okay they they don't have a single data yeah and in any case their assets cannot be divided in the same so it is really army centric yeah okay now the key thing is that you have created cleverly you have basically when i say you i mean the government of india they have killed two birds with one stone a long-standing demand had been met it has been diluted to suit a political purpose this is the unfortunate part because if the indian army unfortunately continues doing ci ops look i'm not saying i'm certainly not saying that they will not focus on the conventional war what i am saying is that when they say we focus on indigilization now which is the responsibility of general rabad and considering our threats are increasing at such a pace and considering we do not have any worthwhile defense industrial complex you need to fill the critical operational gaps get the damn things going but now we'll wait for indigilization so the hope of the future war conventional war network centric war will stay alive so people will argue that look we are doing both we are doing hybrid war what you say yeah you see hybrid war a military like the us military with a budget today their budget you see their budgets they're talking of 790 billion dollars in a year our budget is 48 billion dollars by the way a year with that budget they realized that 18 years war in afghanistan was a total disaster same thing is happening with us rather worse why worse because we have a disputed border with china because we have a disputed border with pakistan and both are joined in the north you see today they the two forces are physically combining in north londak so this is something which worries me at night you see when you see how vulnerable we become and why can't we just leave terrorism i mean this terror is okay but terror is coming from pakistan you have to talk to pakistan either you have to create a conventional capability that they are scared of you i'll just tell you a very instance a very small instance on this i remember in 1990 91 sorry i was working with times of india that time what happened was that one large number of troops were inducted in the theater the army chief was general rotrix so the pakistan army chief got very worried that these guys will come they'll attack they immediately approached america that look these guys have come at large numbers today they're not worried why what has happened between 1990 and now what has happened is that they realized that we have developed a defensive mindset we are focused on the wrong war we do not have the war fighting the conventional capabilities which are credible for war so all this has happened i mean this is what should worry us you know if we were to focus on the right war we can also cut down the numbers of the army which need to be cut because we need the money to give to the other services we need to focus on the right threats so in the end i mean if you were to look take a look at the cds now that i mean it was a much needed reform but the way in which it has been brought out what would be your final word my final word is that unless general ravat which i know will not happen gives up this tactical gaming indian armies capabilities proportionate to our adversaries will keep declining and ten years now we may end up when general ravat will not be in service we may end up with an extremely serious situation which i don't want to quantify to you openly but i have in mind what we are looking at thank you thank you very much that's all for today if you have any feedback any comment do write to us or send us a word keep watching news click


Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States and the Vice President and Mrs. Bush. Isn't it great to have these wonderful leaders with us? Ladies and gentlemen, will you please remain standing and join Secretary Larry Cavasas, a fellow Texan, our new Secretary of Education and the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by the national anthem led by the singing Texans and concluded with the invocation by the Reverend E. Stanley Branch, pastor of the 4th Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. Dr. Cavasas. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, the cup for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Phil, Reverend clergy, George, Barbara, Bill and Rita Clements, Bo and Rosemary Bolter, Fred Meyer, Bob Mosbacher, Tim Laughler, Tom Laughler, I should say, Penny Butler, Bobby Holt and all of you. Thank you for that very kind reception. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Frank Ferenkoff for the outstanding job he's doing as chairman of our party. And let me recognize a man who's leaving the great state of Texas to answer the nation's call as our newest Secretary of Education, Larry Cavasos.   And he was being given an award for a lifetime of service to mankind. And the fellow giving the award said, we're here to pay tribute to you. You're a man of great personal courage, a man of wisdom, a man of truth. Yes, a man to whom everyone across this land owes a debt of gratitude. The old man rose out of his chair and hobbled over to the podium, looked out at the cheering crowd and then turned back to the other fellow and asked, how come you didn't tell him about how modest and humble I am? Well, a greeting like the one you've just given me really does make me humble. But then I guess you all know there's a special place deep in my heart for Texas. I've been all through this glorious state. Every time I come here, I'm reminded of the words of that great old song. Like a storybook ending, I'm lost in your charms. Nancy and I agree that when our time in Washington is done, there's no storybook ending we'd like more than to waltz across Texas with you. I'm also fond of Texas because I have so many good friends here, like Bill and Rita Clements and Phil and Wendy Graham. Bill and Phil, you've proved that Republicans can win statewide races and through your efforts and the efforts of hundreds of Republican volunteers more than one million Texans voted in the Republican primary in 1988. Yes, the old Republic of Texas is fast turning into the new Republican Texas. And I'm sure that will even be true around November 8th as a great crop of GOP candidates from races for the county courthouses up to the state Supreme Court. And then, of course, there's the all-important race for the United States Senate. And I'm sure you're all going to do everything you can on November 8th for a fine man and a fine congressman, Beau Bolter. Beau has served his state and his country with distinction, but it isn't just that he'll be a great senator. He's also the one guy running for senator in Texas this year who actually wants to be the senator from Texas. Texans have served in this administration with great distinction, particularly my good friend Jim Baker. Jim was responsible for some of the finest victories of this administration. Now, Jim, as I said, when you left, I expect you to do it for a guy who is, I have to admit, my very favorite Texan, and you all know his name. And there is another Texan who has worked both in our administration and the Senate, and he's the first Republican elected to statewide office since Reconstruction. He was a leader in the Senate of the fight for a stronger defense. He was one of our arms negotiators in Geneva. He's a giant of our party, of the Senate, of the world, Senator John Tower. You know, some people this year want to talk about competence. Well, fine, let's talk about competence. I just happened to think that the youngest flyer in the Navy with 58 combat missions, the Texas wildcatter who turned down a soft job on Wall Street to make his own way, the Republican chairman of Harris County, the congressman from Houston, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. I'm not finished yet. The de facto ambassador to China, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the vice president of the United States, I'd say his resume says it all. And at the top of that resume there are these two words, George Bush. You know, we've been reminded recently of the importance of pledging allegiance to our flag and to the republic for which it stands. But I'll bet that every Texan on this platform quietly throws in an extra pledge in there to the lone state and the republic for which it stands, too. This republic stands for the very things that have made America a light under the nations. The bedrock principles of family and freedom, peace and prosperity, a strong community in a strong America. Now, you'll hear the liberals talk about these things, too. You'll hear them say there are no disagreements between them and us about these bedrock principles. But it doesn't sound right. They use our words and borrow our tunes, but the song is way out of key. When they say equality of opportunity, they mean straight numerical quotas. When they say closing the deficit, they mean raising taxes. And when they talk about a strong defense, they mean cut defense spending. Well, Abe Lincoln could have told them a thing or two about trying to fool the American people. I'll give them a piece of advice. Don't even try. Texans have been through a rough patch lately, but instead of griping and looking for handouts, the lone star state is fighting back and winning. The state's economy is growing again. And to hasten that process, I've just signed a measure Phil Graham worked very hard on, a measure to repeal one of the biggest mistakes in social policy this country ever made, the so-called windfall profits tax. That tax sure was a windfall. A windfall for liberals and their government programs, that is. But in 1980, thanks to people like you, those folks felt the winds of change at their backs, and those winds blew them all the way home to Georgia. The windfall profits tax is the kind of thing we've come to expect from the liberals. It's not just bad tax policy. It's an example of two different ways of looking at the world. Ours committed a limited government and freedom, and theirs which confuses good government with big government. We've been dedicated to lowering taxes and liberating the American economy from the regulations and confiscations of the malaise years. When we came into office, families everywhere were bleeding from tax rates that sapped our nation's initiative. We took that money out of the grasping hands of the Washington bureaucrats and put it back in the wallets of the people from whom they took it in the first place, the working men and women of America. The results have been amazing. In the past years, we've seen an explosion of hard work across this country, people putting their shoulders to the wheel and shifting their entrepreneurial energies into overdrive. And now, more Americans are hard at work today. 62.7% of all Americans 16 years of age end up. That is a higher percentage of that citizenry than ever before in the history of the United States of America. Taxans know the value of hard work. The main reason we can all be full of optimism about the future in this state is that you all know the dignity and purpose of a job well done. Well, I've just come from another place, Washington, D.C., where some liberals seem to think that work is a dirty word. It's our task not only to preserve our prosperity, but also bring it to people who have not yet shared it. We Republicans believe that the key to solving poverty is hard work, and that's why we want to replace welfare with work fare and get people off the dole and into the workforce. But many liberals in Congress are complaining about work fare. They think the only thing wrong with the current welfare system is that it doesn't have enough money. Well, that's like saying there's not enough water in the Gulf of Mexico. The liberals actually want more money for this system, almost everyone knows has been a colossal failure precisely because it discourages people from working. Well, I say we can't have America's poor and needy in the thrall of a failed liberal notions that have failed to help to perpetuate their poverty and left them without hope. Well, we say it loud. Work means hope and prosperity will ultimately vanquish poverty. Texans know that the bedrock of a strong America is a strong family and that we must raise our children well if the future is to be bright. We believe that parents need help in that noble task, must be allowed to choose the right care for their children, and Texans whose commitment to family is legendary seem to have it all figured out. You look to the family for help. You look to grandmothers. Now look at what the liberals have done. They've written a bill that gives assistance not to the parents, but to the person who provides the care. And that means if you want to leave your child with his or her grandmother during the day, grandma will have to be licensed under federal standards if she's to qualify for federal aid for helping raise her grandchildren. You don't even see grandmothers. Can you believe it? The next thing you know, they'll say barbecuing is a health hazard. But then what can you expect from people who often seem to concern themselves with the rights of criminals and forget about the rights of the people the criminals prey on? We believe justice demands that a crack dealer with a machine gun who murders a police officer in the line of duty should give up his life as his punishment. We must protect our protectors, and that means the death penalty for these vicious killers. If you ask me, there are no Americans braver and no citizens more precious than the men and women who guard us, our state and local police. But the liberals oppose the death penalty in every case. They're more interested in the rights of the murderer than the basic human rights that criminals destroy to police officers' right to life. And that brings up another fundamental difference between us and the liberals. They do not believe that the unborn have a right to life. But with all our hearts and souls, we do, and we pray this nation will turn away from abortion and choose adoption instead. Saving innocent lives, we believe there's nothing more important than this. These fundamental differences, this clash of visions, we see at work in our foreign and defense policies, too. The ideas that hold sway over the Democrats these days would make Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn shake their heads in wonder and confusion. There are people in this room who knew and learned from these two men, people like Phil Graham and me, who watched in horror as their once-proud party, which used to stand for economic growth at home and expanding the frontiers of freedom abroad. A proud bull with a passion for justice and liberty became a stampeded steer, cowed by special interests at home and the enemies of freedom abroad. We believe in a national defense that defends our shores and our allies by land and air and sea, and very soon, space through the Strategic Defense Initiative. But the opposition wants to reduce the size of our navy right at a critical moment when the Soviets are building up their naval presence in the Pacific, reductions in the number of ships we have could mean endangering home ports, like the one here in Corpus Christi. There can be no doubt, I said it in 1980, I say it again in 1988, America needs a 600-ship navy. The Liberals have been all over the map about the B-1 bomber, which is based at Dyer's Air Force Base. Yesterday they were against it, and today, once their pollsters told them to change their tune, they're for it. With that kind of record, I wouldn't bet on tomorrow. No, so that's one gamble I don't want America to take. But it's when it comes to freedom that we have our greatest clash of principles. We've worked for freedom. We fought the toughest battles of our administration over the issue of aid to the valiant freedom fighters who are seeking to liberate Nicaragua from the darkness of the totalitarian night. Those freedom fighters are the best hope we have for stanching communism in Central America. Texas is on the front line in that fight because Texans will be the first to feel the gale force of the winds of the hurricane of communism sweeps north. But that's part of a larger problem. The liberal leadership has always been critical when we found it necessary to use military force, whether in the Persian Gulf or Libya or yes, even in the liberation of the freedom-loving island called Grenada. Well, I have no regrets and I'll tell you now I do every one of these things all over again and I bet George Bush would too. This election is about the future and for Texans the choice is simple. Do we want a future that continues and expands on the policies that have brought America back and standing tall? A future that rests on the bedrock principles that we all hold dear? Or do we want a future that seems like a depressing re-run of the years of malaise? Ladies and gentlemen, the choice is clear. We are the change. We started the change eight years ago. We must continue the change. And on November 8th you're going to let the liberals know the meaning of that slogan on the bumper sticker, don't mess with Texas. Well, I've kept you from your dinner long enough and I happen to be doing another state very shortly so they aren't going to feed me. But you welcome me warmly and I'm deeply grateful to you. Thank you and God bless you all. Mr. President, as you have become aware during these past eight years the Texas spirit is reflective of many common themes that you and Nancy share as individuals with loyalty, faith, strength, and unselfish giving. It gives me great honor to represent all Texans in presenting this replica of the flag of the Republic of Texas. This lone star should serve as a reminder of our love and support from your friends in the lone star state. Ladies and gentlemen, let's let Mr. President know how much we appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. President.


What's up guys, Mike the Coda here. You know, I was doing coach chef long contest the other day and then I realized something. I actually personally believe that coach chef is actually way better for beginners in terms of beginners to learn competitive programming. And here's the reason why. As I'm doing these problems on coach chef, I realized that month long contests, it really forces you to try your hardest, like the very best at a problem. So like there's frog sort, I literally tried the absolute hardest to try to solve this problem. Now ordinarily, if you were to just do the problems on code forces, you just go to the editorial and then just copy and paste the code. But on coach chef, if you go to these problems, right, you can't like during a month long contest, you can't really, you can't really, there's no editorial like yet, right? So it forces you to actually try your absolute hardest on doing these problems. And that really changes the way that you to do problem solving because you're not relying on copy and pasting the editorial. Now another thing that I like about code chef is that they actually have a learning series. So they have a data structure and algorithms learning series, which you could actually do a bunch of problems on here. So it gives you like the different different types of problems that you could do while you're a beginner competitive program and you'd solve all these problems. And then you'll be able to, you know, do better in these contests, because you have the series and try solving the problems. And then in case you're stuck, check out the hints for the pride for a provider for the problems. So they have a bunch of problem sets that you could do. Whereas on code forces, they do have like a numbering system for the ranking of which problems you solve, but they don't have like a, I wouldn't say they don't have like a really learning series for data structure and algorithms tailored for that. They do have like other things, other series that you could probably work on. But yeah, that's another thing why I like code chef. Another thing about code chef that I like about it and why I think it's a little better than code forces is that you do not have the option to look at the tests. So like when you, when you submit something, let's say on coach of meetings, right? Once you finish a submission, you can't look at the test cases, right? So you can't, I can't look at what did I do? What were the test cases for to get a seat? And that's good. Well, why is this a good thing? Because normally when you solve problems on code forces and you're able to look at the test cases, you just look at the, you rely too much on the test cases to solve the problems. And then once you rely too much on the test cases, well, you can't really, you look at the test cases during the contest, right? You only allowed to look at it after the contest. So if you rely too much on the test cases, you're not really improving. Whereas on code chef, if they don't, don't even give you the test cases. You're actually more likely to solve the problem yourself. So those are the reasons why I believe code chef, code chef is better for beginners to do competitive programming. So beginners like me, I am a beginner in competitive programming. And that's the reason why I like code chef better in this regard. Okay. Now here's some downsides about code chef. These contests, most people don't really take these seriously for long contests. And the reason, like your ranking, they don't take your ranking seriously. Reason why is because too many people on code chef cheat. Like they would go to ask their friends and copy and paste code from their friends and do stuff like that just to boost their ranking. Because for some reason, I don't know, when you have a high ranking on code chef, you're more likely to do better. I don't know. I don't know how it works, but that's the thing. On code chef, if somehow if you have a high ranking, you're more likely to, I don't know, get an interview. So that's where people cheat on these contests. But that is, that's a thing that, if you just get rid of that, that's mostly of a people thing, not really the code chef itself. But another thing I like about code chef is that because you're doing a long contest, you get to look up stuff. So in otherwise you normally wouldn't be able to do in a short contest. So you, you could learn more and more things. Like I could look up a new, new formula or something to solve the problem. I could look up other things. I could try out absolute hardest to solve these problems. And then once I solve it, it's good. So that's the reason, main reasons I want to give about why code chef is better for beginners. But in terms of like your ranking and stuff like that, I think that code forces is better in terms of matching your ranking, like with whatever problem you're doing, like if you have like, I don't know, rank one, rating 1,100 or something, right? If you, it's, it has a good system in that. You're, if you were to, if you have a rating 1,100, you could solve any problem rating of 1,150% of the time, right? And that's pretty good. Whereas on code chef, you can't really do that. Like if you have, if you go on code chef and go to like problem sets, search problems by tags, right? Oh wow. Wow, this is really strange. Okay, let me see. How do I even compete, compete problems? I'm trying to look at search problems. Yeah, they don't really give you the, the problems to, to do. Like they don't give you like a numbering way to do it. They just have a short, medium and long, I think. Let's see, all past contest divisions. I'm trying to see search problems. Oh, difficulty level, yeah.  So they don't really have like, they don't have like a better system in terms of your rating. Like they don't give you problems you could solve for your rating. But that's just how, the reason why I like code chef better. Another reason why I like code chef, why code chef is better for beginners is that this is just a personal thing. I get too many, too many messages on code forces that are trolls and then, and then I don't want to deal with that. So that's why if you do problems on code chef, you're, there's no, there's no inbox, right?  So that's the reason why I like code chef. But yeah, those are the main reasons why I think code chef is better for beginners is that they have like a learning series you could do and they have problems that you could do and they have the editorial and they kind of force you to do these problems, you know, but let's, let me know what you guys think. Let me know if you think that code chef is better or code forces better. Anyway, rate, comment, subscribe. I can't live stream today. So that's the reason why I'm making this video. But yeah, I'll check you guys later. Peace.


Guerrero and Tom Bradyskip are going to be linked together forever, just like Barry Bonds and Anderson. Desbraini is to walk away from either the keyboard or the phone because it's getting worse, not better. LeBron James finally participated in and won a dunk contest against 13-year-olds, against 7th graders. Guerrero and Tom Bradyskip are going to be linked together forever, just like Barry Bonds and Anderson will be linked together forever. And because people looking at Tom Brady like, well, hold on, wait a minute, bro, you're in your late 30s, you're in your 40s, winning MVP's. You're playing better in your late 30s and 40s than you did in your late 20s and 30s. How is this possible? So people, like, wait a minute, so if Julian get popped, so what's Tom Brady doing? Skip, that's just a natural. Doesn't mean that it's true. Brady had answered four or five other questions for four or five minutes before this one hit him the exact wrong way. Then he concluded the interview with that. He should have just said that's ridiculous and moved on to the next question. You don't even have to say, I don't want to discuss this anymore. You know and I know how much Alex Guerrero has meant to Tom Brady. Yes. He has changed his life by prolonging his career to levels nobody ever dreamed possible. If I'm Tom Brady, don't distance yourself.  Don't be defensive. Just say, look, I've worked with Alex Guerrero for the last decade, last 15 years and everything we have done is buy the book and it's about flexibility. It's so good, in fact, that we want a Julian animal. We want Rob Gronkowski. We want him around the Patriots. And I'm devastated for what's happened to Julian and how we're looking at him late in his career in which he's having an unbelievable run, made that unbelievable catch in the Super Bowl, but it has nothing to do with Alex Guerrero. Instead, he gets defensive and now we all start thinking, huh, maybe there's something there. This won't taint his legacy one bit. You mentioned the flake gate, spy gate. Have they tainted his legacy? Not at all. He's still regarded as the goat by many people or at least in the conversation with Joe Montana. So to me that can't put a stain on your legacy. If they're still looking at you as the goat, then your legacy is not tainted. These are small footnotes. I'll give you that. It would be an unfair question if Julian Edelman busted for PEDs and you didn't have a clinic and he was going using the Patriot staff and people came up and said, Tom, what do you make about that? Tom could say, well, I don't know. I'm just an employee. Julian Edelman's got to take care of Julian Edelman, but now Tom Brady takes care of Julian Edelman. Des, you couldn't separate at the end. You couldn't separate. You were blown up team meetings. So this weekend he's blasting Sean Lee. And by the way, he's blasting play calling and he called Jerry Jones Clueless, no. You came into this league as a wildly talented young man and you didn't master the route tree and you didn't really, really take coaching serious until you lost a step.  For a defensive player to be able to get an offensive player out of a top of team skip, I've never heard. Now a quarterback has that kind of leverage that can get a defensive player off the field, obviously. But for a defensive player to get, I don't see how to happen. And he just upset skip and he can't let it go. He can't let it go that he's not on the Cowboys and someone has something to do with it other than his inability to make play. I do not hate Des Bryant. I hate what happened to him last year. I'm a fan, so any fan's going to react the same way. I was his biggest fan in 2014. I thought he was the best receiver in football.  And Des is still on sign, which is, it's a sad story to me. A lot of people are looking at it like this, Doug, saying, you know what? Des is actually right. You might not agree with the way he did it, but in some ways they're saying he's right as far as when he calls out the play calling, when he calls out the offense. Remember at the end of last season before the last game, there was a report that several Cowboys were questioning the way they were running the offense. So I think he actually may have saved himself a little face instead of it letting it look like they were just scapegoating him and going at him.  I was the face of the Dallas Cowboys. Romo kept getting hurt. I was here. I played through my foot. I hurt my foot. I came back as quickly as I could. Jason Witton retires, goes to Monday Night Football.  Sean Lee keeps getting hurt and comes back and it's like he's a saint. Meanwhile, all I'm out there doing is try and battle every Sunday to catch touchdown passes and this is how you treat me. So I understand the emotions of it, but dude, you're going to go out your teammates and say that they were, that it was like Brutus stabbing you in the back on the way out the door.  If we start hearing, hey, LeBron's intimidating officials. LeBron is yelling at other kids to pass to Brani, right? If LeBron is giving Brani a pass on not playing any defense, not playing the right way, then I got an issue with it. But the team won the game. And by the way, in addition to being a great experience, how intimidating is that? I'm surprised the other guys were standing there looking. They are. They won the national championship. They won that game. They won that thing in layup lines because everybody else is like, oh my God, we're playing against LeBron's kids. This was just so pathetically wrong on so many levels because first of all, his namesake son, 13-year-old LeBron James Jr. is obviously trying to make his own way in basketball. He's trying to make a name for himself. And all of a sudden, his father is in their layup line doing contest dunks, not just doing lay-up like the kids are shooting. He's doing contest dunks. LeBron James just shows up at the game, sits down in the bleachers. He's taking attention away from Brani and the rest of the kids. He's that big where just being there is going to take attention away from him.  Being animated is going to take attention away from it. Getting it with the team in the huddle and kind of coaching them up, that's going to take attention.  He's just being who he is, having fun with them. As long as Brani's cool with it, as long as Brani's not at home like that, you know. Then I'm cool with it.