Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, on the networks at last. Good evening. Before I take your questions, I have a brief opening statement. Secretary of State George Schultz today reported to me on his recent trip to Moscow, and it was encouraging. Progress continues to be made on our four-part agenda, and the commitment remains to do all that we can to advance the cause of peace and to settle regional conflicts. In the Middle East, it's time for all parties to rid themselves of old ideas and stances that cannot work, and to begin a serious process of negotiation and reconciliation. Any process that is undertaken must meet Israel's security needs and satisfy the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. Secretary Schultz leaves tonight for the Middle East to see if practical and real progress can be made that provides a pathway to a comprehensive settlement, and he carries with him my full support. There's another regional conflict that has serious implications for our country's security interests, Nicaragua. Our policy consistently has been to bring peace and freedom to all of Central America. Today, four of the five Central American countries choose their governments in free and open democratic elections. Recent courts protect their human rights, and their people can hope for a better life for themselves and their children. One country, Nicaragua, with its communist regime remains a threat to this democratic tide in the region. So our message to the people of Nicaragua tonight is the same as it has been for the past seven years, freedom based on true democratic principles. In the past several months, there have been some limited steps taken by the communist regime in Nicaragua toward reform. Now it's not the time to, is not the time to reverse that process. So there's no argument that all of us seek peace and democracy in Nicaragua, and the difference is how to achieve that goal. On February 3rd, Congress voted on continued support for the democratic resistance in Nicaragua, and to my disappointment, the majority in the House of Representatives voted to remove the pressure of the democratic resistance on the Sandinista regime. However, the Senate agreed with me that we cannot leave those fighting for freedom in Nicaragua at the mercy of the communist regime and expect the process toward democracy to move ahead. We've already seen what happens when pressure is removed. In just two short weeks, the Sandinistas threatened the only free press in that country and rejected a ceasefire proposal made by the mediator Cardinal Obando, which incorporated the essential elements laid out and agreed to last August. And in the first two months of 1988, Soviet military assistance to Nicaragua has almost doubled compared to the same period in 1987. These do not represent signs of peace. These remain troubling indications of a regime determined to crush its opposition and threaten its neighbors. There is a choice. We must act to ensure that freedom is not smothered in Nicaragua and to guarantee that these latest promises will be kept in a timely way. End of statement. Helen? For the years you've been very eloquent on the subject of human rights in the Soviet Union, Nicaragua. Why? The question really is, why have you never condemned the treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied areas? Using unarmed protesters, beating people to death, children, trying to bury some alive. And I'd like to follow up. Helen, we have made, we have spoken to the government there. And we've also spoken to the Palestinian leadership because there's every evidence that these riots are not just spontaneous and homegrown. But we have spoken and we have. And that's why, part of the reason why the Secretary of State is going back over there. We don't support that sort of thing. And we're trying to persuade all the participants to try to arrive at a solution representing justice for all. Well, if you want that and you say you're believing security for Israel and legitimate rights of the Palestinians, why don't you go on the public record now and say that there should be an exchange of removal of the occupation and peace? Well, I don't think it's up to us to dictate the settlement in the Middle East. We're not supporters of Israel, so we certainly have some input. Yes, and we have used that a number of times and are using it now. But we think that, and the thing that is taking the Secretary of State there, we think that the necessity is for all who are represented in that situation on both sides should come together when you stop to think that legally a state of war still exists there in the Middle East between the Arab nations and Israel, and that it's time for us to arrive at a true peace and recognize the rights of all. Mr. President, Shiite militiamen are scouring southern Lebanon for Colonel Higgins, the American kidnap last week, and you've expressed a determination to get him out. Can you say that the same intense efforts, the same kind of dragnet will be used to find the other American hostages, one of whom Terry Anderson is about to mark the end of his third year in captivity? We have never given up on that. Yes, as you can realize, it's very frustrating to try and establish a location knowing, of course, that who are governed by the fact that unwise action on our part could bring about harm to the hostages. But we've never let up and we never will in trying to obtain the freedom of all the hostages. Sir, Pat Robertson said today that his Christian Broadcasting Network once knew the location of American hostages in the Middle East, and that the United States, in effect, missed an opportunity to rescue them. I understand he's clarified that remark, but I wonder if you have any thoughts about the tone that he's setting in this campaign. Well, all I can say, I don't want to comment on the campaign, but I can only say this that it'd be very strange if he actually did have information as to the location of those hostages. But it's strange that no one in our administration was ever apprised of that. We have tried our best and through every kind of channel to establish their whereabouts, because that's the beginning of efforts to try and get them free. But I just, if he thought that he knew, he kept it to himself. Mr. President, as of now, is there any change in our policy of not talking with PLO in light of the fact that their reports out of Geneva that Mr. O'Rourke fought is now ready to accept UN Resolution 338 and 242? Well, I know that this is one of the things we're pursuing, if he really is, and if he is willing to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a nation. This has been one of the blocking points, that how do you sit down and try to get into a talk about peace when someone says they have no right to even exist. And I'm sure that the Secretary of State will be, is apprised of that fact, and we'll see what we can do there. May I follow up? And given the 40-year hostility in the area which has been built up, how can you as the great communicator try to alleviate some of the antagonism between the Israelis and the Palestinians before you leave office? Well, we are trying to, and we'll continue to try to. That's a goal that I think would, I would think would be one of the greatest achievements of this administration, if before I leave we could bring about a peace in the Middle East. Mr. President, who precisely are you criticizing when you say that the riots are not homegrown and not spontaneous? Well, we have had, it's a little difficult for me because I, there's some things that I shouldn't be saying, but we have had intimations that there have been certain people suspected of being terrorists, outsiders coming in not only with weapons but stirring up and encouraging the trouble in those areas. Now that isn't something you can go out and say we absolutely know, but certainly the violence is both ways. Seems sir that that's still a generalization if you say some people from the outside. Can't you not be specific and say just who it is? No because I get into areas there that would be violating security rules and I don't think I should. Hello, Russians? What? Hello, Russians? No. Mr. President, it's my understanding that in 1985 your National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane briefed you on the Iraqi pipeline project and got and gained your approval for it. In light of the difficulties that your Attorney General, Mr. Meese is encountering now, could you explain your position on the pipeline and tell me if you think it was a good idea at that time? I have no recall of knowing anything about this pipeline plan until fairly recently and then found out with regard to the transmittal of the letters that have now been turned over to the special investigator and this was about the first information that I recall having. Now, I can't say to you that something that I was given information earlier because I just have to tell you if I was, I have totally forgotten that I have no knowledge of anything of that kind. Mr. President, is it trouble you at all that your dear friend Mr. Meese has become entangled in this project and it has yet been another case which has brought him some, some would say embarrassment? Let me just say one thing. I have every confidence in his integrity. I have known him for more than 20 years but I cannot comment in any way on this case that is now before a special investigator. I don't know what I'm saying. Mr. President, the white minority government of South Africa has now effectively banned activities by dissenting organizations even when those activities are peaceful. What is your view on that and what can you do if anything to reverse it? Well, the State Department has already contacted them about that and we are making our own feelings clear that they should be working toward a multiracial democracy and not oppressing organizations, political organizations there and we have made our feelings clear about that. Well, sir, may I follow up? Have you considered sending aid to the freedom fighters, the ANC or any other organization against this oppression just as you send aid to other freedom fighters around the world? No, we have not involved ourselves in that other than things such as the sanctions and so forth. We have tried our best to be persuasive in this very difficult problem and to find or to encourage a better solution. What's the difference, sir? Well, the difference is that we don't have an armed insurrection going as we have in some other countries and we have a great division even among the people who are being oppressed. It is a tribal policy more than it is a racial policy and that is one of the most difficult parts here. Mr. President, throughout your administration, when members of your cabinet or members of the administration have been accused of any kind of wrongdoing or simply a bad judgment, it's been your policy generally to say nothing. Is your loyalty more important to you than the perception that the members of the government must be above reproach? No, Bill. And I have to say that I do not favor violations of ethics or laws at all in or out of government. But I do want to call your attention to one thing. I think, and this has gone on pretty much throughout the time that I've been here, that there is a kind of lynch mob atmosphere that takes place. When people are, the memories are there of this person, that person, and so forth. But no attention is paid to the fact of how many of them, when it actually came to trial, was found to be totally innocent. But in the meantime, they have been smeared nationwide and it's very difficult for people to remember what the outcome was. They only remember the other of the, in other words, guilt was by accusation and not by actual trial and conviction. And I could call your attention to Ray Donovan, Jim Beggs of the space program, both of them, totally cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever. And this has been true of a great many others. But those that were doing something wrong and were apprehended and it was proven on them, they're no longer with us. Sir, people have asked if, as in the case of the Iran Contra affair, when the committee which investigated it said that noted that you never condemned the actions of those members of your staff who were involved, the question was raised whether your silence meant that you did not find their actions objectionable. No. When they came under the judgment of the law and the judgment was made and great regret if someone was guilty of wrongdoing, but they were punished accordingly. Yes. Mr. President, what are you doing to make things easier for our corporations to trade with the Soviet Union in non-strategic items such as food, food processing, pharmaceuticals, automotive and hotels, for instance, and do you believe the Soviet Union should join the GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Terrorist, and will you discuss these and other trade items with Mr. Gorbachev in your course coming summer? Well, I can't relate to you discussions about those particular things with him, but I do know that there has been consideration of them involving themselves in the GATT procedure. And that, of course, is being reviewed among those of us who are participants now. But I don't know whether that answers your question or not, but our trade with the Soviet Union is restricted mainly on the basis of where we might be giving them technology and information that could be used one day against us. Mr. President, I know you have to remain neutral in the Republican race, but you could clear up a major issue right now by telling us whether George Bush, in fact, did have reservations about the sale of arms to Iran, whether we had reservations about Israel's role in that policy, and whether, in fact, he's telling the truth when he tells us that he did have those reservations. Yes, in the general discussion, and that's not unusual here, I've ordered our people on cabinet matters or anything else, and I want to hear what they really feel. I don't want to be surrounded by yes men. And yes, there were reservations, but I'm not going to go into that, just as he wouldn't in one of the private discussions that we may have had. But I think it's time for me to point out what the opposition was based on of anyone who did oppose, particularly it's been revealed that Secretary Weinberger and George Schultz both objected. They did not object the idea that we were trading arms for hostages. Their objection, they knew what we were trying to do. This had been a request that came to us from some people, not in the government of Iran, but who wanted to privately meet with us on how there could be a better relationship if and when the day came that there was a new government in Iran. And if you'll remember back in those days, almost every other day, there was speculation that the health of the Homeini was failing to where there might be this contest for a new government. Their objection was what we had done. We'd gotten this request, and in dealing with it in this conversation with these private individuals, we pointed out our feelings about terrorism and so forth. They agreed with us. And the thing was that they, the Hezbollah, as we know is philosophically attuned to Iran, the idea was that they could perhaps influence the Hezbollah to give up some of our hostages. And indeed, as the talks went on, they did. We got two of them free. Their objection was that if and when this became known as it would be, it would be made to appear that we were trading hostages or arms for hostages. Now we were giving these arms to these individuals because we felt that maybe they could influence the Hezbollah. We weren't dealing with the kidnappers at all, and this was what the whole situation was. But it turned out that George and those who had doubts were right in that when it did become known by way of a henchman of the Ayatollah, then everyone just automatically said and to this day are saying it was arms for hostages. On the issue of George Bush and his role, though, this has become one of the major issues between the vice president and Senator Dole. Now, although you have to remain neutral, as the author of the Eleventh Commandment thou shalt not criticize one's fellow Republican, do you have any advice for these two men? And aren't you getting a little concerned that they might be hurting the Republican chances by their very bitter political feud? Well, whether I'm concerned or not, I'm not going to comment on things like that. I'm going to say that they know my feelings, all of them, about the Eleventh Commandment. Do you have any advice for all of them? Jerry? Mr. President, the resignation of Secretary of the Navy Webb has ignited a controversy about the Europe buildup of the United States Navy. And the question is, are you satisfied that budget cuts in the military have not damaged our national security? And are you still committed to a 600-ship Navy at a time when the Soviets are not cutting their Navy? I am committed to the 600-ship Navy, and I want you to know, Jerry, that from the very beginning since I've been here, the Congress has cut my request for defense every time. And sometimes they have tried to pretend that that is in an effort to reduce the deficit spending and so forth. But in a five-year period, the Congress cut my defense budgets a total of $125 billion at the same time that they increased my request for domestic programs by $250 billion. And this budget, which is now being attributed to me, no, this isn't as low as they originally wanted to cut it, but it was as high as we could get it in the negotiations for the present budget. And it has been harmful. But let me tell you that in 1980, when we came here, the Navy had 479 vessels. And by 1987, we had 568. And by next year, it will be 580. And so what has happened is that there will be a little delay in the achieving of the 600-ship Navy. But I can't help but remind, tell all of you, when I was campaigning in 1980 and knew the state of our defenses, I was faced with a question, and some of you will recall I did a lot of campaigning on question-and-answer basis. And almost every gathering, there would be a question, well, if I came to a choice between deficit spending and build-up of our defense structure, which would I choose? And every time I said responsibility, I would have to choose the build-up of our defenses. And every time and every audience in America that I said that to gave me an applause that was almost an ovation for saying that. The second part of the question was, is it a threat to the national security that the Navy is not going to have 600 ships on the schedule that you had in mind? Well, I don't think right at the moment, and with the way we're progressing in various treaties and so forth, I don't believe that the threat is that immediate. And because very shortly we will achieve our 600. We want 15 carriers and they're squadrons, and we've just launched the 15th carrier, 100 nuclear-powered-attack submarines and four battleships, and we're achieving that. Mr. President, you must certify by March 1st whether Panama has been cracking down on drug trafficking through that country or whether aid to Panama should continue to be suspended. What are you going to do? Well, I can't give you the answer yet because we're still working on that and still collecting the facts as to what their effort has been at trying to intercept the drugs and join us in that campaign. But as you said, March 1st we will be giving the answer. Mr. President, if I could follow up, some officials in your administration have suggested that if Noriega would step down and go into exile that you would stop the prosecution of him on drug charges. Would you consider that kind of deal? No, and I'm not going to comment on something of this kind. This man has been indicted by a federal grand jury, and so I'm not going to make any comment of that kind, nor have we made any advances or suggestions of that kind to the government of Panama. What we would like to see is a return to democracy and a civilian government in Panama and not this domination by literally a military dictator. Mr. President, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan today objected the pressure from the administration regarding the formulation of monetary policy such as was contained in the budget and the economic report and a treasury letter to Federal Reserve Board members. Don't you have confidence in your appointee to the Fed, Alan Greenspan, as the chairman? Yes, I do. And I'm going to have to find out what this is all about that you're talking about because nothing of that kind had been directed to me. Mr. President, back to the contra aid question. In your opening statement, you seem to suggest that the Sandinistas are taking advantage of Congress not coming through with contra aid to withdraw some of the concessions they had made. With Congress about to consider new humanitarian aid, both a Democratic and a Republican plan, is it worth it to pass humanitarian aid without military aid? Well, I think the only comment that I can make there is that anything that will keep the freedom fighters as a pressure on the Sandinistas is worth doing. Just as when we tried to pass our own bill and narrowly failed, you could see that the military aid was down the road a ways. It was not necessary right now. The other aid, humanitarian aid, is more imminent. And so if we can get that, that's fine. And then we'll take our chances on the other and try to get it. But they do still have some military store for a limited period of time. If I may follow up on that point, sir, in the two plans that are being considered, the Democrats want the Defense Department to deliver whatever stores and supplies are authorized. The Republican plan would give that responsibility to the CIA. Do you favor either course? I certainly would favor the CIA. I think that involving our military when there is no need to is very rash and foolish because you would be putting our military into a combat situation. And this is what we've been trying to avoid in Central America all the way. In that regard, Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the latest hostage situation. Do you think it was responsible for your administration to allow Marine Lieutenant Colonel William Higgins to operate in southern Lebanon at a time when eight Americans were already being held in that country and when your own State Department was recommending against travel there and considering the ramifications of the abduction of William Buckley earlier? I don't think that you can use that as a measure of where officers can be assigned to duty. They're in a dangerous business to begin with. And this, we are a part of the United Nations and we have obligations to the UN with regard to the UNIFIL force that has been there for a number of years now. And this particular officer happened to volunteer when there was a vacancy at that spot, volunteered for that. And I think that we have to have the confidence and I do have the confidence in men like him that someone would have a hard time getting secrets that could harm this country from a person of that kind. Mr. President, to follow up on Bill's question earlier, Democratic National Chairman Paul Kirk this morning called your administration the sleaziest and most corrupt in recent American history. Even if you have full confidence in people like Ed Meese, they will be cleared, do you have any concern that all these charges and all these investigations are going to be used effectively by the Democrats against all the Republican candidates in 1988? I don't know whether they're going to be used effectively or not. I know they're going to be used. They have been for quite some considerable time now. As a matter of fact, if anyone listened for more than 15 minutes to their candidates, you would decide that we're in an economic slump. We're burdened by inflation, high interest rates and unemployment. When at the moment none of those things are true and we have a higher percentage of our potential employee pool employed than ever in our history and are continuing the longest expansion, economic expansion in our history. And tomorrow morning, I think you'll find a little good news. Long about 8.30 tomorrow morning is going to be released with regard to the economy. So I just think that, you know, the kids will play as long as they want to do that, but I hope it will easily be forgotten. Mr. President, if the budget that you had proposed to Congress would cut would eliminate three housing programs for the homeless, it would make deep cuts in an emergency food program and it would end a job training program for the homeless. Do you believe that the problem of the homeless is less pressing now than just a year ago when you signed legislation from Congress to create these programs? No, but I do know that we're doing a great many things and we also are keeping track of the extent to which the private sector is joining in and helping in this. And this budget is the result of long, long weeks of negotiation with the Democrats and ourselves. And I think that we're meeting the problems. Again, I also have to say this, that sometimes our budget in programs can reflect another program we've had going, which is a management program. And we have had a team or a considerable period of time now that has been actually investigating the management practices of government programs as compared to the way they're done in the private sector. And there are millions and millions of dollars that are being saved so that something that maybe looks smaller does not mean that the people in need are going to get less. It means that we're able to provide that with less administrative overhead. When I came here from a governorship, as a governor, I had seen federal programs administered in our state in which it was costing the federal government two dollars for every dollar that reached a needy person. This is something we've been trying to change and we've made some progress in it. The President has to follow up on the budget. The Chairman of your Council of Economic Advisers told us last week that the deficit might have a good side if it forces your successor in Congress to make choices in social programs. Do you see a good side to the deficit? I have said that I think that there is a great reform that is needed throughout many of those programs. And it is a reform to where we can get these programs to where their goal will be to remove people from dependency and make them independent of government help instead of doing what we've been doing for too many years now. And that is actually involving them in dependency to the place where they never can get out. We've made them permanently dependent on government. And we're trying to change that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Madam. I'm going to run for a minute. How many more of these? I got it, Mr. Spiker. I got it. I got it. I got it. I got it. I got it. Come again. Come again. Come again.


We'll talk about one detail. One detail. All right?  All right? Now, I want you to turn your right hand in, right elbow out. So your left hand should be facing forward, your right hand should be facing toward you. Now take your left foot, everybody tap your left foot on the mat. High, big high leg over to your right hip.  Scissor your legs, square your chest up to the mat. All right, do it again. Elbows to the mat, knees on the mat. Twist your right hand towards your body. All right? Big high leg over to your right hip. Okay?  All right? Watch this. All right? Wing, half, four, no wing. Doesn't matter. Okay? I got this half in and I get them to 90 degrees. I get them to 90 degrees. Here. Even if I'm out to the side a little bit, I got them to 90 degrees. My chest is too high. I want my chest in the armpit. So watch this as I'm driving. Okay? I'm going to go big high leg over and I'm dropping my elbow to the mat. Okay? This looks like I don't have control, but look at my chest once I square it up. This is something I was talking about. Is it Kaden? Kale. Kale? All right. This is what I was talking to you about dropping. What do you have on your single? Well, this is not a single last time. It's not a single last time. Oh, that was a loner single. But that's what I was just talking to Kale about, is opening the hips up and dropping your elbow to the mat. And Joe is smelling my armpit right now, but it's all right. Then I scissor my legs back right here. And then remember when we lifted and circled right here and sucked the sole out of the body? Yeah. That's how we pin. Okay? That's the difference between you pinning a guy that you remember for the rest of your life, all right, because it was so bad, or we just squeaked by. So one more time. And it doesn't matter if I got a bar or just a hat, but when I open that hip up again, pinning is about patience and small adjustments. It's not about power, all right? So I get this hat.  Turn into me. Turn away from me. Like he's trapped. So that's why we can walk and get out to the side here. What I need to do right now? Nice. I need to get my chest back down, right? So even if I shorten this bar up, I can let go of the bar. Open my hips, drop my shoulder, drop my shoulder, drop my elbow to the mat. I don't stay here. As soon as I open my hips, it's like I hit and I square it back up, okay? Then lift, then walk, then walk, then walk. See how my arm is around his waist? I'm pulling my elbows back to my ribs. I'm pushing my chest through his spine. Not his chest. I'm putting my chest through his spine. Notice my knees right up by his head, reinforcing everything. And then I just push my head down to the mat, and then I'll watch him bridge and pin himself because he wants to get off the mat. As he walks off the mat, he's going to remember me because I made him pin himself. Does that make sense to everybody? So again, we're getting to that position with our bar or our half. I'm getting my elbow to the mat, opening my hips up. I'm scissoring back square, okay? Then I'm driving, driving, driving. Then I'm lifting. Then I'm circling. Then I'm squeezing elbows. Then I'm putting them down to the mat. Go! Go!


Well, May is National Beef Month and Bemidji is getting in on the action with its first ever beef days. For this week's Community Spotlight, Haiti Clotter shows us how it's all about the beef. If you find yourself asking, where's the beef? You don't have to look further than right here in Bemidji. Bemidji 4-H, Biltrami County Farm Brewery and the Black Duck Future Farmers of America held its first beef days at Culver's Bemidji on Saturday. It's really important for the community to learn about where their beef comes from. Also being part of 4-H, it's very nice to have the youth here and the 4-H families to share their knowledge with the community. Part of being in 4-H includes showing animals and that's what Thorin, Horne and Caleb Kellum do as members. I show a main azucal and a herford cow. I show a charlotte cow and I show a herford cross cow, wolf heifers. Being bags, corn toss and a horse race were some of the games played. This game shows what cuts the beef there are and Caleb and Thorin know exactly how they like their burgers. Pickles, mustard, ketchup, lettuce. Tomatoes. Tomatoes, yeah. Ah, she's a force. But the star of the show was a live cow on hand. For Chelsea Gilbertson, 4-H has taught her responsibility in caring for animals. Like having animals, you always have to make sure they have feed and water and you gotta walk them, make sure they're trained for fare. Beef also provides a boost to the economy. We do have a lot of grassland and in dry years usually it's pretty good for cattle and that's where the amount of cattle come out of Beltram and Coney. For this week's Community Spotlight in Bemidji, Haiti-Quatter, Lakeland News. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Guys if you have a question you're in this panel Just let me know kind of raise your hand. You know what after the previous person has asked the question that way I can come walk over to you and kind of make this an orderly fashion But I knew do know we have to volunteer for the first question this panel, so we're gonna kick it off All the pressure's on you Okay, uh testing one two three. Hi professor Klein So I was reminded in when you're talking about this when you're talking about discovery As an important process of the market process I was reminded of local knowledge and subjective knowledge now Whenever I run into an argument about these sorts of things I run into a semantic issue where people still when people talk about a big AI machine a central planner that could allegedly collect knowledge and collect So-called local knowledge subjective knowledge I run an issue where when I say local knowledge, it's not a compelling word What I'm asking you is is there a better semantical term? Than local knowledge To show that there's a huge barrier in between central planners and Discovery as a feature of the market process I'm sorry. I'm so sorry for asking such a complicated question. I mean I I I think I know where you're going. Let me try to ask you this slightly different way.  So I mean Is there an economic calculation lecture tomorrow? I think if it's anybody remember, okay. Yeah, so Yeah, no, I understand what you mean so The but that's the general issue is why can't why can't an AI suck up all the relevant knowledge? Is the term local knowledge the right term I mean how it called it, you know the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place So I guess I would think of it this way that kind of what you're saying is is there a kind of knowledge? That is relevant for entrepreneurs or other decision makers that is hard to encapsulate in data That could then be processed by some kind of an algorithm and I would say yes Local knowledge is just one part of that right so what types of knowledge are difficult to Parameterize and give to a computer that could then compute the solution to some problem Well, some of it is like there's sort of scientific and technical knowledge like You know knowledge of astrophysics Right, so you could go you could walk down to the Auburn University Library a few few blocks down And you could pick up books and articles in cutting-edge astrophysics and you could sit there and process the words You could read the words probably most of them right but you wouldn't gain the Understanding or the knowledge of the principles that are involved because you're not an astrophysicist Okay, so so an AI is not going to understand the theory of advanced relativity or whatever it is Just from being able to process the words. There's also knowledge that is Hard to express Verbally even if you have it like the knowledge of how to ride a bike Okay, if you know how to ride a bike, you've got that tacit knowledge in your in your brain about you know How to shift your weight? It's actually pretty complicated if you think about it How fast to turn the pedals and how sharply can you turn the the the wheel without falling over? You know imagine that you have you have a friend who has never ridden a bike before and you're gonna like send them a Email or a text message with all the instructions for how to ride a bike You know, you could try to write that down step one stand next to it step to put your Feet over the center bar step three turn the pedals step four go Right, I mean, but nobody can ride a bike that way So that's knowledge that is in your head that you cannot even if you wanted to put it in numbers or words So the AI is not gonna understand that Right, and then there's also, you know the knowledge that's so minor and uninteresting that it was it's not You know, nobody would bother to write it down Right what what I don't know. I forgot your name again. This guy right here. You know, what do this guy have for breakfast this morning? That's not on the internet anywhere unless you have like celebrity stalkers, right because nobody cares I mean so that kind of information is not going to be accessible to an AI either So it's not just local knowledge meaning thing in Auburn, Alabama Right, it's different kinds of knowledge that cannot be expressed in numbers or words Entrepreneurs and other decision-makers, you know, they take that into consideration as they act in the market But a central plan or even with the top-of-the-line AI system is not gonna have all that That's not really the answer your question, but that's the thing I wanted to talk about So I have a question for professor Rittenhauer so you mentioned how Mises said that Division of labor can kind of like transcend and bring about social cohesion But you know one of the biggest problems Facing us today is the conflict and culture and differences of people I mean you just take somebody who lives here in Auburn, Alabama versus somebody who lives in New York City They believe in radically different things and it's hard to imagine You know them coming together for a division of labor And towards, you know productive efficient goals So would you say that the division of labor brings about social cohesion or is a product of social cohesion? I think it it can be both I think that a division of labor For the division of labor function well There's certain certain institutions that are helpful And the institutions are beyond just sort of legal. I mentioned sound money and private property, but just sort of the Sort of the you know the What you should one say that the cultural say trust or Giving the other person the benefit of the doubt Helps facilitate the exchange that then helps facilitate the market division of labor if you're suspicious of everybody That that's gonna you know work that maybe work against the developing of the Of the market division of labor, but I think Mises is the main point is that once you participate in it It's sort of it increases the costs of maintaining conflict and and and sort of fosters You know working in society, but it's it's not You know it's not It's not absolute so people will you know people make you know, these are not where you know people are not merely You know They have all their prejudices and all everything else, but even with their prejudices understanding that exchange the market division of labor is Beneficial can help subdue certain certain conflicts, but it's not you know, it's not a it'll be all and all my my oldest daughter works at a Lemonade stand near outlet mall and she was just making conversation that ended up costing her a tip She the people literally were put putting it putting their money in the tip jar and they had mentioned that they were from Alabama and My dad goes my daughter says oh, yeah, I've been down there in my my Father got his PhD at Auburn and and literally The money was like this and they in the mention of Auburn She put the pulled the money out of the jar and she said well actually we're Alabama fans and put and put her money Yeah, and put her money in the pocket that true story my and so so so there's a case where you know Exchange didn't foster as much brotherhood as we had hoped Hello, I am I had a question regarding the subjective Theory of value when you began your your talk you you described how some Take the theory to a sort of an absolute Relativism which got me thinking about what kind of Objective satisfactions might there be so so my question is what is the marginal utility of truth? first I have to say that You must have seen a previous version of the lecture on YouTube or something because I didn't actually say that this time About the relativity point. I didn't make You didn't use that worry, but I know you said no, no I said what I said was the Subjectivity of value refers only to the fact that value is a state of mind that that was the point. I was emphasizing on the on the other question. Well, I Guess one would say that the marginal utility of truth Is the value that a person? assesses That knowing this truth whatever it is and different people could certainly have different Extents of value that they place upon knowing something that is true It would depend upon what the truth was and what their circumstances was Happen to be and so on and so forth, right? So we could just take a fact like Here we are all together at Mises you this is true but the but the marginal utility that I get from Having this true knowing this truth might Is personal to me and it might be different for the way that you assess that fact or we might have a more Well a less mundane truth that we is probably what your question was about right about something that's deeply true That's importantly true for us in our lives. Yeah. So so again, it's I think it's just a I Think it falls under. I think you're right to suggest that it falls under for us the personal valuation that we make of Understanding that truth as it has as we incorporate it into our own lives So if there ever if there was any kind of Objectivity in regards to marginal utility would have to be something abstract as soon as it becomes sort of tangible or concrete Then then that's when it it is subjective. Would you agree with that? I'm not sure I followed the so when I said like the marginal utility of truth I sort of meant like truth like abstractly like generally, but then you sort of described how You relate to like like information like certain facts like we're all here today and Described how that would mean something more to you or to me, but but I mean like just truth just in general That seems to me to be a an object like an objective sort of desire for all humans You know, oh The the idea of marginal utility and subjectivity is not a claim about whether or not their objective Elements or whether or not the the thing that we're Personally evaluating It is an objective thing it not not even that it's generally considered as an objective Truth it it's our it's our own It's our own individual personal Judgment as to the meaning of this to us personally as we perceive it And so I I think those two things are consistent with each other. I guess is what I would say I mean another way to think think about it I mean It's interesting to sort of wrestle with that that kind of the kind of issue that you raised but remember I mean Manger and his followers they develop the concept of marginal utility to explain exchange in the marketplace Right. So when we say the marginal utility of eggs We mean the utility or usefulness of a marginal egg a marginal unit of eggs So the concept of the marginal utility of truth only makes sense if truth is a thing that has units I mean what what is a unit of truth? That's why I mean it's a sick point because you often hear non-Austrian economists Trying to apply this kind of reasoning to say well, what about you know, what about a clean environment? What's the utility of? You know of environmental protection well, I mean that's really not that's like a does not compute kind of a question for an Austrian Economist because units of environmental protection are not traded in markets right now you can trade You know a clean a chemical that cleans or some kind of agent that cleans pollution or you know There's a machine can install in a smokestack that purifies the air that comes out. I mean those are economic goods Have marked utilities attached Abstractions like truth justice the environment love world peace are not things that economics deals with directly Um thank you guys so much for your talks my question is about subjective values Also, it's a little bit more for dr. Herbner My question is can you help expand a little bit more on the idea of subjective value and how it can help us better understand? Desperate situations I think you mentioned in your talk like a desert situation where someone would be willing to pay a Lot more for a bottle of water a lot of people would see that as a very unfair Situation where there's a very unequal exchange of value going on to that Can you just help expand a little bit more on how? Subjective theory if I can better understand those situations Sure, well I Think understand and accept might be two different things with someone who holds this view that you know, there's an unfair advantage as somebody has an exchange, but Just as economists of course we there's no difference Conceptually or logically Between those cases right they're not they're not logically distinct It's just that we have we have two people who have reverse preferences for a good and two goods and and they make a mutually advantageous trade the Guy in the desert gives up his kingdom for a bottle of water and because the guy You know has the has the bottle of water and the Dying person has the has the kingdom and so it's just an exchange right for mutual benefit But certainly saying that is not gonna. It's not gonna aid the you know the economic analysis of it I don't think is is going to be convincing to someone who who objects on other grounds That the trade is unfair or unjust or or the person really should have out of charity You know given the water or you know, those are all sort of extra economic considerations Hello My question is for but you can all weigh in but it's more directed toward a mrs. Dr. Klein And the question is on money and I agree that cryptocurrency is not officially Accepted as money yet. We may have some differences of opinion on that But it's a little bit speculative, but if Rothbard were still with us today Do you think he would be pleased and excited about Cryptocurrency or interested in it or that you know, he says a lot about gold Do you think he would still be a hard-money gold guy or excited about Bitcoin or things like that? First of all say he would say oh sweet No, I think Murray would be very excited about it, especially just the prospect of having competing currencies Maybe that will be some small limit to inflationary Policies from from the Fed, but just yeah, I think you'd be very excited about competing currencies and cryptocurrency in general I think you'd say it's fantastic But yeah, I think it's very encouraging that we have this now and it's getting more and more accepted and it's not Generally accepted yet. We're not Going everywhere and pulling out our crypto wallet to pay for everything we get But plenty of places now we're seeing more and more Are accepting it and it's becoming legal tender in some places. So I think it's very exciting. Very encouraging I mean, I think Rothbard would also think it's interesting and we all do as like an entrepreneurial Innovation, I mean, it's a technology That different, you know that emerged on the market like others that emerged from entrepreneurs I think about a lot of these cryptocurrencies too is that You know, we've been talking about the money aspect, but there's also, you know, there's the It's like a technology for for remote payments And you can write contracts that are mediated by you know Enforced through these kind of through the blockchain and all that. So, I mean, it's not just The medium of exchange aspect. It's a whole bunch of other Kinds of ways that we can reduce transaction costs by using this particular approach And I think Murray would say it's great that entrepreneurs are coming up with these Innovations we'll see, you know, can we predict whether the market will eventually embrace them or not? No We you know, but it's something we would certainly want to analyze. I think I agree. He would be excited about it I Have another question for Peter Klein And I thought it was interesting that in your talk earlier today Brought up the promoter that Mises idea of the promoter and how it was the real driving force of the market Even though he didn't think it was a Praxeologically different like category from the uncertainty bearing function But there was a recent paper in the quarterly journal of austrian economics that took up this topic in particular And basically said that they the author thought that there could be a Categorical distinction basically and the idea was that the normal just uncertainty bearing entrepreneurs Are the ones who undertake or bear uncertainty within the current extent of specialization in the market And the promoter entrepreneurs undertake or bear uncertainty Outside the extent of the market by creating new production processes and extending specialization basically Adding new steps making more roundabout processes. I just wanted to know what you thought of that thesis Yeah, I mean, I don't recall the exact details of that specific argument But if the question is, you know, can we think of different ways to characterize Different types of entrepreneurs, right? So within the general category of uncertainty bearing agents There are a lot of different ways you could do it. I mean, so There are entrepreneurs who's You know Where the thing that they do is not coming up with a different Good or service to produce but rather a different way to organize production throughout the entire economy Or maybe they come up with a new kind of a business model or a new way to organize a particular sector of the economy You know, maybe there's some who specialize in you know Making available goods and services that were never available before There are others who specialize in coming up with better ways that we can produce existing goods and services I think all those distinctions are potentially useful I mean Are they praxeologically distinct? I don't know. I mean, I guess I have to think about that a little bit more Really the point was just mesas wanted to argue that Remember what what mesas mesas point there was was really it's kind of similar to the first question It was really just a communications issue Mesas was saying if you read what economists have said about entrepreneurship, they're inconsistent Sometimes they mean the purely formal notion of what the you know of the entrepreneurial function Sometimes they mean specific historical figures Who really had a big an outsized impact and mesas is just saying instead of using the same word for both Let's come up with different words. Let's reserve the word entrepreneur for the first category And let's use a word like promoter for the second category. I mean, and it didn't it didn't work I mean, it didn't take off now now the word is used in even more confusing ways than before But that was really all mesas was doing is trying to improve the communication Of entrepreneurial ideas rather than arguing praxeologically where you could draw different lines and so forth I have a question for uh, dr. Jeff so on our On one of the slides you brought up there was three different views about how value is created Now, you know what i'm talking about with where you showed marshal's view and the classical view as well um I agree that consumers consenting to the price at hand will create the value of that good or service But when I looked at marshal's view on it I thought well that kind of makes sense because that reminds me of consumer surplus and producer surplus Like a consumer has a place where they will not go above that they want to buy for and a producer has a place that they will not Go lower to what they want to sell for right? So I feel that the producer has some sort of I guess negotiation Like control within the development of the value for a good or service Because they're they're obviously not going to go lower than a point and the they're kind of meeting in a happy medium Where they're both seeing a surplus from where they don't want to go to you know what I mean So you're saying that businesses never suffer losses Well, yeah, I mean, I'm not saying that I mean they absolutely do Why do they accept a price then at a loss below their costs? That's true. That's true. I mean they I would say they accept it because they have to Make their product better and then eventually get to a profit margin and go through the process of making their business, but would you not say that producers Have some sort of negotiating tactic and when they create value or do they just Full to the consumer's consent of what the price should be Well, we didn't of course that's a more advanced topic to talk about Negotiation about the kind of give and take the bidding and offering and so on that we didn't we didn't try to get into But the point is that once the the point I was stressing is once the goods produced And the cost of production have been incurred Then then it's just a marketing question for the for the producer for the entrepreneur It's just a question of negotiating on the basis of what trying to convince the consumer to pay the price that they're asking And he's not thinking. Oh, you know I'm going to hold out to to recoup my cost of production that well I mean he can think that but it won't do him any good the the actual price that That that is paid for the good will depend only upon what the consumer is willing to pay I guess my point is that there is some sort of like I'm a sales guy And in my experience, I've had to negotiate a ton of people with like what price they want to meet me at And at the end, yes, the price that they consent to Is the price that it's going to get sold for but there's still some sort of Value of control that I'm using I'm exercising a certain amount of control to get them to a price that we want as well I think that develops the value of good Yeah, I'm not sure we're saying something different What I was emphasizing is that the point to stress at a theoretical level is That cost of production whatever they are Do not have an independent Impact on the establishment of the price of the good that they produce The the cause and effect structure actually goes the other way around It it so Whatever whatever cost of product whatever it is the cost of production can do to influence the way people think about things in negotiating It's it's just a negotiating that determines the price and not there's it isn't independent of what the consumer values Yeah I have a question for dr. Rittenauer on the division of labor so K through 12 education in america is really pushing college and they have been for the last You know probably 10 15 years I'm just wondering what you think in regards to the lack of people going into trades when the The reality of the situation is a person that's going to go be an electrician is going to be in half the debt is me and make Triple the money in two years I'm just wondering what your stance is On if that will eventually have a negative impact on the entire economy with people not going into those trade jobs because of the societal the way society looks at Looks down upon people in the trades as compared to with a college degree That's a good question. I think I mean ideology does matter um, so if you yeah, I mean We know ideology matters and we know that you know continual communication from teachers at every Grade has an impact on how people think um, I I still think though that I mean given all that I still think that I mean if if they're in balance is that if they're they're sure, you know excess demand of certain trade services the value of Those services are going to raise and people are going to pick up on it and I mean, I think even now the The pendulum is swung some I mean, I think the the the what do you want to call it the The the the the education debt bubble is you know, it's out of the bag and and an increasing number of Potential college students have recognized well This isn't such a great deal and are making you know voluntarily making the switch Even you know regardless of the real ones propaganda. So I think I mean Yeah As long again as long as we keep markets relatively free Then these things will Sort themselves out and people make the decision Not to be in the situation where you're you know miles in debt And you're you're not earning enough money to pay for the debt versus You know going the trade route. So I think it's sort of certain itself out And it will sort itself out as long as the market's free Hi, everyone. Thank you very much. Just any of you all can weigh in on this So taking a look at what we've talked about today It's been very academic and I may be a minority in the room I I don't my my work is not in academia or any of the very specific topics We've been discussing but more so just the you know the someone that's not so Can you what would you say the best way is to distil down some of the conversations that we're having To be able to explain this to someone that has no knowledge of this at all as I think Someone mentioned in an earlier presentation. We'll leave this week knowing more than 99% of the You know average american so how do we distill down some of the very specific and technical language that you all have been using into something that helps someone be a supporter and And understand the general concepts Those are the people I spend my day talking to and and uh, yeah I'd love your all's opinion on that for anybody. Thank you the reasons to just recently and foe can tell you about it has just started a series of short videos Like two to three minutes long, right? And it's specifically targeted for people like that. So if You think you could get them to watch a very short video. That's totally On a very basic level We have them they're on Actually, there may be one on money. There may be one on What are markets? I mean very simple and I know we have very short attention spans now But now we have these really really well done. They're like a cartoon Animated and very basic and put it in plain english words Or I was gonna say or you know you can watch it and then try to get a feel for How are these concepts explained with this terminology and then just sort of use that as a pattern? Uh, because I mean in some sense, that's what it That's what it has to take. I mean the ideas are up here And then I mean I'll I'll be honest what what we're doing here has also been already distilled Uh to to a certain level and then you write to then Try to You know to communicate it to someone else it takes a while to to think of good Like examples analogies and things that people can grab a hold of but Uh, so you know just spend some time I think everybody has to do in some sense. It's some kind of entrepreneurial Everybody has to do that given their own circumstances and you know You're the people that you're trying to communicate with better than we do so So aren't there sessions uh at the end of the week that address this very yes Yes, we'll have some sections kind of on this topic as well as just kind of Application to contemporary issues, which I think might also play play role there. I think I have time for one last question Hello, so my question is for a written hour. Um I am curious I guess to how the division of labor works under hostile environments or hostile somewhat hostile parties or maybe parties that may become hostile in the future for kind of an example, let's say the us and china maybe at some point and Let's say china has a comparative advantage in developing certain like computer technologies while the u.s Has a comparative advantage in advantage in producing corn because we subsidize it so much um So what is I guess the risk and reward when it comes to like Continuing with our comparative advantage of corn instead of investing more heavily into something like computer parts when possibly in the future we may not have Such a trading partner Yeah, I think that that's a good question. I mean some of it since it's a it's an entrepreneurial question There are other considerations You know besides I don't what you want to call them purely economic That that I mean you can make the case that the the the law of association holds regardless of what the geoglobal political situation is um, and so you know if we're if we're dealing with the world of peace and and um And I have that sort of um You know, uh, what should one say a A sense of trust that is warranted between parties Then then it's a whole lot easier now in in the present world. We're in things are messy You don't know who you know if you don't know who you can trust there may you know, there may be There may be reasons some people might Say are valid to at least make sure that we have the capability of doing what we want to do Uh, but those are again, those are those extra those are sort of like more political questions and not not as not as I could It doesn't really affect the um The economics of the case Just to amplify that when when I was a teenager My least favorite chore was mowing the grass. I had all kinds of pollen allergies I just hated it and as an adult I have never mowed my own grass I mean I go to the market, right?  I mean, I know that I don't know how to grow food Okay, if this you know, if there's zombie apocalypse, you know division of labor completely breaks down I'll probably starve because I don't know how to Hunt animals and skin them and you know, and I don't know how to grow corn or whatever But but but if I were like a prepper, you know If I were some kind of person who's always thinking about how am I going to survive when the grid collapses You probably know, maybe some of you are like this, right? I would practice I would learn how to grow food and I would learn how to Build things out of wood and do all these other handy dandy things, right?  I'm willing to accept Being less efficient and having less food available and a reduced variety and quality of food Because I'm so worried that someday I might have to live off the land Okay, economic theory doesn't tell you whether it's okay to have that belief or not Whether you know, we're just saying look if you choose to be self-sufficient The the price that you pay is from from not participating in the division of labor is yeah Here's the cost you're going to bear less food less But worse food whatever so likewise at the national level you can imagine a larger community that says well, we're not good at making Steel but we're so worried that some other group is going to you know start a war with us That we're willing to bear that price of having a less efficient steel industry a lower overall standard of living today Because we're so worried. We don't want to be dependent on some other group for steel Economic theory doesn't tell you if you should do that or not. That's a political question But economic theory does tell you if you choose to not to participate in the division of labor You'll you'll you know, there's a cost associated with that That being said that is our panel for tonight round of applause


Let's start things off with, obviously, you and I are both extremely passionate about the synthesis of science and spirituality, metaphysics, understanding the nature of reality, the nature of consciousness. We're taking at it from such similar and also slightly different perspectives, which is, this is going to be an epic back and forth on that. I loved the learning about the living mirror theory of consciousness and especially the understanding from, from what I understood from your video, I liked the fact that you went all the way back to what you could say is a biogenesis, and just the idea that you can't divide the cell from the cells understanding of its environment. Those two things are coupled together. If you don't divide those things, you understand the unity of everything, but that's this general idea is that the living system needs to understand its world. Will you take us through that process and elaborate a bit? Yeah, definitely. And so the way you said it is perfect, like the fact that in order to exist as a living system in order to have form and to like to have some kind of structure that's relatively separate from the world around, you need to be, you need to attempt to know what's going on around you. Otherwise, you're just going to get demolished by all the forces in the world that, you know, demolished all the things that are alive, right? And this, this is not currently the kind of way that most people think about consciousness in the kind of scientific and philosophical mainstream. We have this like hangover from, well, it's the kind of whole lineage of Western thought, where we kind of assume that single celled organisms are just little mechanisms. They're like little clockwork things that just kind of do that thing. And it's a very kind of, it's a view that really takes away any of the kind of awe at what a like vast universe of complexity, like single cell is, you know, so you'll hear scientists on the one hand almost dismiss plants and single cells as these boring little mechanisms. And yet on the other hand, life is the kind of one of the greatest mysteries in the world and we're talking about life when we talk about a bacteria or a single cell, right? So, so yeah, the simple way of saying the theory is exactly as you said that it's really as simple as every living system, which is a system that actively keeps itself together, actively perpetuates its form. And scientists do attempt to know what's going on in its environment. It needs to know of itself in its environment. And this is just another way of saying consciousness. It kind of, it constructs beliefs about what's going on in like in existence in kind of a qualitative picture of the world. And this is, we're talking now at a kind of conceptual level, but which is how it first came to me, but then it turns out if you if you dig into the kind of hard, like physics and like statistical physics and maths behind the thermodynamics of life, it's there. The same stuff is there. You can unpack it at that level as well. And it was it was that when I saw that I was like, okay, like this is this isn't just hand waving, you know, saying, Oh, maybe, maybe that's how we're consciousness is it. I'm utterly convinced now that this is the, as you say, a biogenesis the moment the life pops into existence, that is the moment the consciousness pops into existence, because then you have a system that can be aware. Before then, everything is just truly one system where everything is dissolving into everything else. And you can't really point to an object and say, is that conscious, because, you know, we can label a rock in the ocean as a rock in the ocean. But really, there's no boundary there, it's just being dissolved and everything's just kind of, you know, melting into each other in this kind of, in this kind of single thing we call physical reality. And so you can't even say is a rock conscious, but you can point to the pattern of life and say is that conscious. So there's also, I think that's something I've not spoken about in public but I think it's quite a powerful way of thinking about this life forms with life forms you can even you can ask if they're conscious, but everything else you can't even really ask if it's conscious. So within the ultimate nature of this infinite consciousness this God the source this implicate whatever the that we want to use as that as the main metaphysical truth that within that ocean is that infinite is a whirlpool. I've been using this whirlpool analogy that there's this whirlpool which is the a biogenesis for the whole planet. And then there are these whirlpools for all 8 billion human creatures as well, and that the whirlpool itself is the combination of the, the coupling of the, the, the, the single celled organism at the first time to its environment the coupling of that there needs to be a ledger mechanism in a sense, like I really like using a ledger idea because the cell itself has a ledger. And we've had a Dr. Chow Tong on the show, and he is extremely obsessed with these, these, these, the mathematics of understanding cells because they do have a cycle. They have a schedule for mitosis they, they, they must know they have a protein buildup that signals to them at which point it's safe to divide, given their memory and their history. Without a doubt, the same idea applies to us. Do I have enough resources right now for me to procreate? If the answer is no, I'm not going to procreate. There will not be mating and further the recursive function of making more humans. And so this, this idea that your life is, is inextricably connected to the, to, to your environment. And now, did you choose the word mirror because of how it's all, in a sense, we talk about this so much in, in spiritual world where if it is just this one consciousness that is having the, the symphonic experience through all 8 billion artists, and that there's, that we're all in a sense mirrors of the same source. And so is that the idea that both the mirror of the individual and their environment like that there's that coupling together of the, of the ledger of the person and their environment but also the mirroring of all 8 billion of us of that source. Yeah, so, so I would say that the, the word mirror is referring to a kind of property of the living system, but the consciousness itself is like a reflection. So, if you want to understand a reflection, you know, the analogy would be for neuroscientists trying to understand the consciousness by just looking at the brain in isolation.  It's, it's something that can only be understood as a process arising in this, in this very zoomed out picture, where you're considering the photons you're considering the surface properties of the mirror. And so similarly with with living systems when you zoom out and you see living systems as as you say a kind of whirlpool as a pattern in reality that perpetuates itself. The feature of those patterns is that there's this kind of informational reflection of the structure of the world around the system inside it. And this is kind of what consciousness is I would say. And I think it's to go back to you were, you were saying the kind of the source or the kind of, you know, I might call it kind of the ground of being right if we get into this kind of these metaphysical questions. Part of the reason people have found it hard to think about the place of consciousness in nature is kind of articulated by something called the hard problem of consciousness, which can be thought of in a few different ways. But one way of thinking about it is as a metaphysical problem that you've got the kind of hard matter that makes up the world. And then that's a kind of substance that exists. And then you've got mind which is kind of another substance and then somehow you got a map between the two. If you look at, you know, prior to this kind of the scientific narrative that the world is made of little material building blocks. Most kind of spiritual traditions have this idea that the ground of being is something utterly beyond our concepts, you can call it matter, you can call it consciousness you can call it whatever you want. It's utterly, it's the ground like the territory is so much greater and faster than the map.


Hi, my name is Belchika and I'm an actress based out of California and today is the last day of the self-tape challenge. I always have such a hard time saying self-tape challenge for some reason. Yes, so today I'm going to be performing a scene from NCIS LA, the wrong script from the wrong day. I just have like scripts floating around now. Yeah, so because it's being really difficult, it's really difficult to finish this challenge because I have a lot of other auditions and things that I need to do yesterday, today, and then one time at the beginning of the challenge, I am just showing you everything. I am not editing these videos at all so you can see my my slates and then you can see my takes. Yesterday I only did two takes and I feel like the last this week with scenes, I have been only doing a few takes. This scene was pretty easy to memorize. It's from NCIS LA. I'm playing Karen and I would love to be in any of those NCIS shows, any cop shows. So that's why I wanted to play around with this one and yeah, so let me move this over here. If you haven't seen any of the other videos from this challenge that I made for myself, it was themed differently every week. So last week I did a bunch of monologues and this week I have done a bunch of scenes so if you want to like just use them for practice and you want to get inspiration of which scripts to use, I definitely suggest watching those but what's going on here? Okay, okay let me sleep first. Oh and my boyfriend's gonna help me by reading the other lines today. I'm gonna start with hey Kenzie, what's going on? Are you gonna sleep? Oh shoot, thank you. Hi, my name is Beljika and I'll be auditioning for Karen. Thank you. Am I even looking at the camera? I am. Hi, my name is Beljika Rodriguez and I'll be auditioning for Karen. Hi, my name is Beljika Rodriguez and I'll be auditioning for Karen. Oh by the way, since I'm not editing this, usually I would put my name down here during the auditions especially because my name isn't as common and what I've been doing also right under my name in parentheses putting it a little bit more fanatically so putting Beljika so they know how to pronounce it because a lot of times when I get on set they're like oh we were wondering how you pronounce your name or even one time um I can't remember if it was a director I think it was a director he was like hey I googled how to spell your name or how to pronounce your name and I saw your video because I have a video on my channel about how to pronounce my name. Anyways let's do some takes of this. Kenzie, what's going on? Step away from the vehicle, walk towards me. Have you made a break in the case? I said step away from the SUV. Listen, I'd love to help but I can't right now. I have a flight to catch. Really? After Liam was killed here it's safest for me to leave LA. We can't let you leave until you speak with us. Kenzie, I'm really scared I have to go. You buying this? Not so much. You? Nah.   Nobody gets hurt, no one will ever know. That's not happening, Karen. You're not in a position to win. We're not leaving without you. Drop your weapons now. Kenzie, by now you've figured out who I am and what I'm capable of. You used Datsun as a decoy. You were the arms dealer the entire time. Decoy is a bit harsh. We cared about each other. But yeah, you're right. I didn't want to be the face of the organization but since most men underestimate us, well it was a pretty damn easy ruse to keep up. Walk away. Like I said, that's not happening. Tell your men to put their weapons down. Light them up. Okay, I feel like that take was pretty good but I stumbled during one of the lines, huh? May I just do one more? How did you feel? Did you? You stumbled on the most men. Did you? Did you feel like I'm trying to play like the beginning really innocent and then later did you feel that switch? Okay. Hey Kenzie, what's going on? Step away from the vehicle. Walk towards me. Have you made a break in the case? I said step away from the SUV. Listen, I'd love to help you but I can't right now. I have a flight to catch. Really? After Liam was killed here it's safest for me to leave LA. We can't let you leave until you speak with us. Kenzie, I'm really scared. I have to go. Are you buying this? Not so much. You? Nah. Listen Kenzie, I like you so I'll make you this offer once.  Nobody gets hurt. No one will ever know. That's not happening Karen. You're not in a position to win. We're not leaving without you. Drop your weapons now. Kenzie, by now you've figured out who I am and what I'm capable of. You used Dachshund as a decoy. You were the arms dealer the entire time. Decoys a bit harsh. We cared about each other. But yeah, you're right. I didn't want to be the face of the organization but since most men underestimate us it was a pretty easy ruse to keep up. Walk away. Like I said, that's not happening. Tell your men to put their weapons down. Light them up. I feel like those two takes were pretty strong. All right, again two takes that's awesome. It makes me feel so much better than at the beginning of this challenge. I did a few things that I think was 26 or 23 takes or something. You're welcome to exit love. Thank you. But let me know which slate you liked better and which take. There aren't that many and oh my god, I'm done with this challenge. I will make a whole video about the things that I learned and the things that I want to improve. Just make noise. It's fine. The things that I want to improve and that happen and that I found out. But thank you so, so much for watching. Again, thanks to all of those people that always comment in these videos. I really appreciate it. You guys know that I try to reply to every single comment. I get a notification for your first comment, but then if you reply to that comment, I don't get notifications. I have to just go back to those videos and look if anybody replied to my reply. So I always try to like your comment, respond to your comments. So thank you so very much and oh my god, I can't believe this month. This is my 30 second video. Okay, I'm going to go do some other things and hopefully book some jobs. Thank you so much. At the end of every video, I feature another channel. This is today's feature and if you would like to be featured on my next video, make sure you're subscribed. Like this video and leave me a comment and also a huge shout out to my boyfriend. That's always a trooper and always will help me read the other line. So thank you, love.


Hwani gaisha para mpwimisha kwenisha §imanda kwenisha? Isi naia hwapu giliia kwenisha haja? P었습니다wa kabupasu nga Hwapu kwenisha mpwimisha pwimisha hwapu kwenisha wuli hwapu kwenisha kumapu kwenisha hwapu kwenisha bwoli maia kwenisha And a copy, always one copy, has to be sent to the Ministry of Labor for what you call a citation. For most people who are in Qatar, agree with me that you can download your contract from the Ministry of Labor website. You only need to have your mobile number, you only need to have your QID, then you can download what you call your contract in any way or the other. Something that you definitely need to understand also when it comes to contract. What type of contract, by the way, did you sign with your employer? Most of us we've got into what we call a recall of what we call trouble. We do definitely don't know what kind of contract that we signed with what you call our employer. Some have signed what you call a fixed contract, some have signed what you call an unopened ended contract. And some people unknowingly have signed what you call unlimited contracts. All these types of contracts that I'm talking about have what you call a specified duration of time that you are supposed to stay with what you call your employer. Which is something that definitely you need to understand or you need to know in one word or the other. So in that kind of case what do you know, what do you, why what do you say? You should know the type of contract that you have with your employer. Hope I've tried to share something for you. Thank you so much. See you again in the next video.