What's up? I'm Tajik Sharp, and this is my ink. Yeah, so I got across, you know, to remember my grandfather. He passed away when I was young. My grandfather, my dad's side, you know, it was very significant to me because he was, you know, really the first person that I lost that was, you know, close to me.  And the next tattoo is when I got on my leg.  Now, my last tattoo is of my daughter. Her name is Jordan. I got that tattooed on me.  So, you know, so she always going to have a special place in my heart.


Mr. Donald, I would like to thank you again for your presentation here at ICT Qatar. Everyone enjoyed it. I just want you to share with us a couple of things from your experience in the UK. First thing, what do you think about what ICT Qatar has to offer right now? Well, I think you do have to take little steps to move forward, and in terms of the maturity of the use of e-learning in Qatar, I think you've done the right thing. You've launched your portal. You've got some really key content on IT, project management, business skills, and so on. But I think you're going to have to move very quickly into a more sophisticated view of e-learning, which is not just a portal, but which may involve bespoke content. I think what makes people really want to use this e-learning stuff is the more exciting stuff, as opposed to the page turning, let's learn how to use PowerPoint or the international driving license type content, which is good. But you do have to take that next step because you have to excite people. If I use Facebook or Twitter or YouTube, I use it every day because I like it. It excites me. I'm addicted to it. I think the trick here is to make people addicted to learning, but you have to loosen up a little bit. You have to have less surveillance, less tracking everything the learner does, have they completed the course. I think you needn't worry so much about completion all the time. People come to conferences and they check out all the time. They feel bored. They go to sleep. Don't worry about people checking out the courses. It's not a bad thing. It's maybe a good thing. And I think the danger with just the portal, just the content view of the world is that it's good, but it's only the first step at the bottom of the long stairway. Very good, very good. How is technology changing e-learning itself? Well, the big thing is mobile learning or M-learning. Everyone in this room has a sophisticated mobile device, which is effectively a computer.  But the possibility of delivering this stuff straight into someone's pocket is obviously there. You can already get YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and so on. And if you widen that out a little bit to iPads or tablets, that's what will excite people. You know, everybody here has a mobile phone. They renew, they get a new one every year. It gets better and better and better. We're now right on the cusp of having a device that really delivers good content. I think specifically Android, because web-delivered content for mobile devices is possible. I work with a company called Caspian in the UK that does precisely this. It delivers content straight to your mobile devices. Then you can learn at home, you can learn on an airplane, you can do what you want, you know, if you download each stuff. And I think that's the big change. If you would give, you know, leaders and organizations an advice or two, what would it be in adapting and learning within the organizations since this is why we're here today? You know, when people in organizations, they tend to be too old for the job. It's like teachers, you know. When you're a teacher, every year you get older, but the kids stays the same age. So they go away from the kids all the time. And that's true in training as well. Trainers get older, but the same young people hit the organization. And therefore there's too much of a gap.  Regardless of them as your subject matter experts from the technology. And the people don't do that now. I have two 17-year-old boys, I ask them all the time, all the time professionally what I should be doing because they live and breathe it. And I'm always getting older. So that's the first thing. You have to, in your team, involve younger people. They're going to take over anyway. You may as well ask them now. They're the future managers. The second thing is sensitivity to marketing. You know, learning is a product. It's like chocolate. It's like anything else. It has to taste good, be good. But you also have to tell people what it is and excite them about it. And training departments aren't very good at this. We've had some brilliant presentations here from Katana Petroleum. You can tell that those people in the health example, those are people who understand marketing. That's why they've had the success they've had. They are selling, promoting and planning the process for the organization. Rather than just shoving a bit of you learning in.  Very good advice indeed. Very good. Well, thank you so much for your presentation and for coming to Qatar to share your experience with LearnDirect. And Epic, of course, and we're glad to have you here. Yeah, no problem. Thank you.


I am Dr. Sumit Talwar, I am the Chairman of Bariatric Surgery of Manipal Health & Prizes Private Limited. So, being overweight is now not a lifestyle problem, it is considered a disease like any other disease. It is not the individual's fault that he is overweight or obese. Therefore, bariatric surgery resets the set point of the healthy weight in that person. So, basically bariatric surgery brings that patient out of the unhealthy weight range into the healthy weight range naturally.


What's up everybody Jason Jasby's case breaks calm. Excuse me We're gonna give away a thousand dollars in break credit if you buy two more teams in this 2021 rookies and stars football 40 box cereal case break pick a team's number one so first guys like I said it is a Case break all-card ship how to get into this giveaway is by buying two more teams You buy two teams to get one entry by 14 to get two entries by 16 to get three entries So at the end we'll alphabetize the customer names and see who got two or more teams and put you guys in a little randomizer and Top two win five hundred dollars each So here we go guys Thank you guys right here P-18 number one Terry got like the last six. I think Last but most of the bears there's cereal boxes 40 of these bad boys. So most likely We're ripped like five at a time Ten at a time actually you probably do that or 20 Only one pack boxes, but Just the time and effort to take them all out Terry. It's just a it's just always a cardboard. I Would have just put it in the pack. It's like this might be the most time-consuming part honestly Yes, you're right.  Oh, I'm probably the fastest working break in here probably Hands down. Let's do it Travis. I'm down Just this and SPA that's it Is all we got lined up. Think of it this way. Maybe we get some nice hits If you don't Maybe you win backs five hundred dollar credit codes many trees die for our addiction You know what actually rookies and stars has is it has these crusade inserts that look really nice That's right. Terry. It's right Don't worry about him Brody. Right. Let's just try to get out of my skin. It just doesn't work I think he's got him to Joe a couple times up. I already have five more. I need to wreck some Dude if I gave you guys some wrenches you guys Honestly, I think some of you guys would be good people's and actually use it for the good Yeah, you know what Brody though now. That's actually a good thing though Because now it's gonna fill up like two breaks and it's a promo break now. So Kind of think of it as a good thing. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Hey there, buddy. Stay there, buddy It's it's it's gonna be hard for me to say yes, but Retail usually does give you an opportunity, but I would really highly doubt it. We'll find out though Maybe in a case you can I know for sure in blasters. There's definitely chances, but Serial boxes. I think it's the first time I'm breaking an actual cereal box Like case I should say All right, let's go with these first Some of the rookies and stars instances are really nice. So like I said, these ones here they look awesome airborne Like I said, the crusades look really nice too Ryan Tannehill Looks like a red wave or something, right? Kyler Murray Looks really nice The megas for rookies and stars a loader. Yeah, I heard about that I heard the megas are nice Jamar Chase Airborne Justin Fields Torrell Davis Calvin Ridley Nice Zach Wilson right there Kyle Pitts Mac Daddy Jones T. Law rookie Nice Tray Lance Devonte DK Airborne Kyle Jask Kyle Pitts crusade Justin Herbert Nice Tom Brady. That looks really nice actually Derek Henry Nice Tray Lance red Daddy Jones It's like a true silver crusade Stellar rookies. Is this like the is this like the The ones you can find here as case hits or something. It's like really nice actually 49ers going to Terry That looks awesome actually Najee Silver Brady Calvin Ridley Joe Montanian Tom Brady Jaylen Waddle All right, let's finish some more boxes. All right, that should be the remainder of the uh Of the 20 boxes right here from the first 20 Najee Mac Jones Airborne Patty Mahomes crusade Zach Wilson Kyle Pitts Stellar rookies Mac Jones these stellar rookies look really nice Justin Fields Stellar rookies Zach Wilson Mahomes Airborne Devonte Smith Tray Lance Patty Mahomes crusade Davis Mill finds Ward Joe Burrell Nice little silver interstellar of Tray Lance Looks nice Interstellar Devonte Williams Devonte Interstellar Justin Fields Zach Wilson Steve Young Hey, brody. Did you end up uh grading that Trevor Lawrence you got the gold or selling it by any chance? Let's rip the next 20 It's actually guys this great value will actually take me like 30 40 minutes. Not really an hour Oh, sorry. What was Mac Jones? Did I say Trevor Lawrence? I'm at Mac Jones Gotcha Just know I think that Mac. Well, if you send it with PSA, I think it's gonna have to be in its own They're gonna upcharge you probably Because it's probably gonna sell it's gonna be like the highest like value probably I'm not sure how they're higher value, but You'll probably have to submit that one on its own You'll get it much faster though, but There'll be an upcharge for it because it's an expensive card Well, you're sure you don't want to just go to the the movie theater right there. Yeah, but it's so close That's fine. Whatever if you want to I'm down. We just have to get like Yeah, we just need to know if he's okay with that. If not, then like Maybe you can ask me like we were thinking of taking it and be like, do you think you'd be interested in that? If not, we could just walk around Walk around the pike If now we can walk around the pike and then go to the movies I think he might like the area to walk around like where we scooter Dude, it's like right there though. It's so convenient And it might not be every theater like that One dude offered me 12k in cash the day I pulled it I'm gonna turn him down then one sold on eBay and it's set for about Yeah, that's a little low ball right there Especially since yours is gold and especially since the one of ones over a hundred thousand dollars supposedly Yeah, I wouldn't think I wouldn't have taken that for 12 But how are you talking about Rex? That's what it says Terry Although there was rumors that also the guy that actually bought it for a hundred thousand flipped it for like a hundred and fifty thousand But I doubt it. I think it was fake The guy decided the guy that bought it was grading it and I think he graded at ps8 then Yeah, it's just the way it goes with those kind of cars Terry people really believe in the guy so They will invest dumb money Now either it's gonna pay off for him In the long run or he's gonna lose out on a lot of money We just don't know, you know We can all assume that he might not be the guy long term and He just doesn't have it in him. But then he turns out to be it and then that guy's a genius, you know For only spending a hundred thousand for it Come on Rex Close your ears when the when adults are talking And Rex No, we're talking about our godson He told us he wanted to go see Thor with us. So we're planning out, uh taking him on our weekend off this weekend Taking him to uh to go eat Walk around at the aquarium there in downtown Long Beach and then taking him to the to the movies Well, see that's yeah, but that's the thing That's the thing bro. Yeah, like We can all say that you know because look at all the people that were saying, you know That didn't believe in Patrick Mahomes his rookie year, right?  I'm not saying he is gonna be A great quarterback for a long time. But let's just say he is right He's a pro bowler. He maybe wins a Superbowl or wins an MVP You know just has great stats that hundred thousand dollar $100,000 card at the time is probably a great investment You know But we can't predict what's gonna happen though, right? That's that's the one thing That card could be worth like $40,000 next year because of how he plays And I don't even think it's just more him. It's just the success of the team There's Brady workers worth millions of dollars Terry The Brady's on a whole nother level Nazi hairs Mac Jones But it's just hard to compare though at the same time from Brady rookies to To mac jones because first of all it's a different era different time in the hobby And second of all, you know His stuff is more rare because he wasn't really It wasn't really a top hit not saying they didn't make cards of him, but it's not like It's not like nowadays where if you're like a lower end pick you're probably all over products But we're talking about the black finite mac jones Yeah, the one thing that ends up being the most expensive for Brady are like his contenders rookie tickets They're the ones that go for big coin and they could be like PSA six sevens So they were just hard to grade and they still go for millions Interstellar jamar chase or stellar rookies starting at interstellar stellar rookies fields I don't know rex was he really that good of a baseball player I mean the only person the only person that like we can honestly say that like If he had played football He had been a Hall of Famer or if he had stuck to baseball. He had been a Hall of Famer was probably both Jackson, right? I mean Because you guys got a glimpse. I didn't get a glimpse because I wasn't born yet But you guys that grew up in the 80s you guys got a glimpse of both, right 80s 90s whenever he played I mean I don't know like it's I think that's the only player that you can say probably like if he had stuck to Football or had stuck to baseball. He would have been like a Hall of Famer and both of them I can't speak for like Brady or anything like because I don't even know how good he was And he never really truly gave it a shot I mean deon was good too, but I don't think he was as good as bogey I mean, let's just be honest, right deon did win a super bowl and a world world series But I don't think deon was like super super good though, right? I mean, he was just really fast and not saying he wasn't talented But I think bow was like the better of the both dual sport athletes I mean Kyler Murray was like a top 10 pick I mean, I don't know because he has wouldn't be if he had chosen baseball Could even pretty good. I mean Russell Wilson was like a third or fourth round pick, but Justin Fields and Rogers Without question, bro. He would I mean if we think trout's cards are expensive, just imagine if trout actually won world series Just imagine that dude. I mean If trout just like had already just won a couple world series I mean his shit would just be insane Yeah, I don't know if every case is different of this one, but I mean These are also like cool cards though in a sense. I mean Honestly with PSA bringing back their lower end stuff. I wouldn't doubt if people are grading like these crusades Because I said these cards do look really nice, but there's nothing super super crazy I personally haven't seen a number of cards because all the reds are not numbered I mean, I haven't seen anything that's been eye popping. That's different that would be numbered I mean all cards are gonna ship and the shipping team would catch any number card if I didn't have any but I don't think I've seen any numbered. These have all just been Just the red I don't know Jim. I'm I'm I'm a big Oregon fan. So I think I'd lean with Justin Herbert but Joey B has that it factor to me and I think he's gonna do pretty well I just think Herbert with the charges is cursed. I think the charges are so cursed So I don't know. He's kind of has to get out of He has to get out of San Diego or sorry to LA But I'm a big Oregon fan. So I mean, I take Herbert over Joey B I think Herbert is a better has a better arm strength than Joey B I mean, I don't know. They're both really good actually. I mean, I shouldn't even Be trying to say Joey B's not good, but I mean Herbert's pretty good though, too Jim. I mean, you can't say he's not I mean, he just his team didn't have the success that Burl's team did with Cincinnati That's all I think a lot of people have kind of like just Love Joey B now because of what he did his second year But you know, obviously they could have easily lost that Raiders game in the wild card And then this all would have done. We wouldn't have been talking about this, you know Well, I feel like, you know, Herbert and the Chargers They've lost a lot of close games man within five three points and they just just couldn't They just they just couldn't pull it out, you know But um Yeah, I mean, I honestly think Herbert Is probably a little bit better than Joey B, but that's just me. I can I'm okay. I'm there's that's just my opinion As an overall quarterback, but yeah, I can see what you're saying there He has like, you know, the pain at the line of scrimmage with the Brady killer instinct. Yeah I for sure. I see the killer instinct for sure See, I feel like we're Herbert like He's not a very vocal person kind of like mariotta was where he kind of just leads on the field But um, yeah, I mean, I don't know. I hope they both have a great two great careers too good careers, you know I hope that's like the Josh Allen Patrick Mahone's rivalry that's there, you know with Joey B and Justin Herbert And all those guys All right All right, you guys so there you go guys. So yeah, I mean You know unless like I said our case was just kind of eh I mean just really got stellar rookies that are reds And you know the rookies and stars of crusades Like I said, I mean the shipping team's gonna go through all those cards. They'll double check everything but everything does ship So that's the good thing But then the whole point is obviously it's a cheap product Because you can see a lot of these teams, you know aren't too pricey, but you have a chance to win Uh thousand dollars, you know, so I mean, I think that's what people bought in at the end of the day, you know It's kind of like just taking that risk throwing throwing in like 40 50 dollars to win a thousand So that's what people I think are pretty much doing with this product So here we go. All it takes is one guys All it takes is one Case might have been a stinger terry, but if you win a thousand bucks off of this Then and then it wasn't a stinger case That's what you got in for right, you know Chris had two January 4th 3 I think all of those teams casey cincy buffalo They all match up differently with with with one another You know what I mean? Like they all they're all they all match up differently like It's gonna be interesting that a of c is definitely much more loaded right now than nfc. That's for sure Had 14 my cat two and terry with eight That's four I think we all got 16 entries. Yeah Everybody was in And yeah, j dog. I that game was wild man the whole like you know The wasting the clock time out. I don't know what like yeah charges could have easily won that game and who knows Yeah, maybe they win a couple playoff games. I don't know But they're all good I think we're I think it's exciting times for the nfl though with all these young good quarterbacks in the league All right two dice rolls there. Let's go. Let's roll Five four nine times. Good luck One two three four five six seven eight and nine bow Five four nine larry and chris parent. Wow. There you go chris. I think chris only had two teams and there you go That's all it takes So congratulations.  So again another one's in the store You know, like I said, this is mainly for some break credit Also on top of that getting some potential good rookies and stars crusade inserts and the stellar rookies So I appreciate it guys Jaspy's case breaks.com. Also, this is a promo break on top of that So not only were you having a chance to win money in this break Uh, it was part of the promo list So now that we got this out of the way, boom You guys have a chance to win even some more money Thousand dollars and then two break credit codes of 250 each So I'll paste in your guys' names right now in that too. Actually, that's actually Actually a good idea right now. So actually let me take this out And then I have it here on the promo for seven five. So we'll just put that at 10 And then we'll say this is seven five This was uh Rookie's stars PYT number one. All right, I appreciate you guys. Jaspy's case breaks.com


Hi, I am Joss and in this video I will show you some improvements to a sidebar. As you can see, the shares can now be opened to reveal different views on your shares. New are the deleted shares where you can recover a group share that you removed maybe by accident. Let me recover this one. As you see it is now back in a shared review. The favorite view now shows you folders you favorited so you can quickly access their content. And the sidebar is smart, it remembers your choices. If you leave, say to the Activities view and then come back, the shares are still open and the favorites are still closed. And of course you can do it the other way around. The sidebar is just one small improvement in XLOT 14. We hope it will make your work easier.


So we've got a question here from one of our Facebook Live followers who's watching and listening to this live from Jaika Vadla who says, do you have any lifestyle tips to avoid diabetes? Okay. Lifestyle tips. Okay. So for diabetes, you definitely want to reduce sugar in all senses. What I do, and I was going to mention this earlier, is that I'm such an advocate of smoothies specifically because I take them with me. Now, if you're running around a lot, James and I are in Los Angeles where it is an hour in traffic each way. It is, you know, you might have to be at a meeting at two and then cross town at four. I have a thermos which I take with me, take my smoothie with me every single day. And it's a basic thermos I got on Amazon for about $35 and I've had it for the last couple of years. It holds 40 ounces. So I'll make my low carb smoothie in the morning, put it in the thermos and then by four o'clock if I, instead of stopping somewhere where it's unhealthy food or sweets or I've tempted by sugar, I'll have my smoothie right then and there even if it's in the car. So that's one thing. But yeah, it is tough having a sweet tooth and trying to get around it when you don't have something to have a healthy alternative. I definitely recommend berries, berries, almonds, nuts. If you don't want to do the smoothie, just always have it with you so you're not tempted. And then final question. When is a good time to have a smoothie like should I have it first thing in the morning before I go and work out? Should I have a post-workout? Should I have it at nighttime? What when's the best time to have a smoothie as a meal replacement? So that's a great question. I really think you could have it any time of day depending on your goals. I wouldn't have a very sugary smoothie in the morning. I wouldn't have it at night either. I would leave that tool after your workout. So if you're going to use the pineapple, the banana, any of the sweet fruits, do it after your workout with the protein. If it's higher in fats like coconut, coconut chocolate or avocado or has a peanut butter in it, then that's better later on at night. And that's even better with cottage cheese, which is a slow digesting protein. So if you have cottage cheese and coconut or cottage cheese and peanut butter later at night, that's going to do wonders for you. All right. So there you go. How to make great smoothies, how to get fit and healthy, how to put on some weight as well, like now you know how to put on some muscle. Assuming you just add a whole lot of the more protein if you're wanting to build muscle, Brad. Oh, yeah, more protein. You can throw in so much more calories. As smoothie king, we have this one drink called the Hulk and in a 20 ounce, you know, 20 ounce smoothie, it was a thousand calories. That's the 20 ounce and then the 40 ounce obviously double. But bodybuilders would come in there and just crush that because it had ice cream and lots of fruits and lots of weight gain powder. So it's great if you want to gain weight. If you don't, please measure your ingredients because you do not want to make that mistake of making a milkshake instead of a smoothie.


The combined forces commander and the chairman of the Republic of Korea's Joint Chief of Staff visited the U.S. Navy's forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS George Washington at sea. It's important we continue to work together and do exercises together so that we can have a readiness, ready to act as a deterrence to war and provocation. The visit allowed senior military leaders a unique opportunity to see the operations of an underway aircraft carrier, including aircraft launch and recovery, and included a visit to other strike-meat vessels. I think it's important for the military leaders to come out here and see what effects we are generating so they have a clear picture of the capability that the USS George Washington can bring. Visits like this allow the Navy to demonstrate the capabilities of its platforms and people and to promote peace and stability in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations. For USS George Washington, I'm Petty Officer Ricardo Guzmán.


This is Classics of Liberty from Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute, narrated by Caleb Brown. Today's classic is Lysander Spooner's No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority, Part 2. In our first number on Lysander Spooner's No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority, our author systematically rejects the notion that individuals consent to government by paying taxes or voting. There, the case is decidedly abstract and philosophical, but for our second number, we turn to the more explicitly legal and constitutional. Spooner begins by demonstrating that the Constitution purports to be a contract between either sovereign individuals or sovereign state governments. Regardless of the actual parties, however, the instrument claims the ability to coerce the vast majority of the populace into its rule, though they had nothing to do with its creation or adoption. Who exactly was we the people? Certainly not the female half of the population, nor the several million slaves, nor children, nor even free African Americans. To this list from Spooner, we may add the Native American population, recent immigrants, social outcasts of all sorts, and even landless or otherwise poor white males. None of these people were allowed to vote for the Constitution, and as we've already seen, one's vote is hardly the same as one's consent to a contract. In fact, only about six to eight percent of the American population voted for the Constitution, and by 1860, a similar proportion elected Abraham Lincoln into office. Despite this complete lack of Democratic-Republican legitimacy, Spooner continues that the Constitution utterly fails as a viable contract. Question upon question is left unanswered by the text, and through all the confusion, the fundamental problem remains that no one ever actually signed this contract. A small cabal of anonymous voters are supposed to have given their assent for a document, then ratified by the people's supposed state representatives. The parties to the contract never signed the contract, and one cannot violate an unsigned contract. Spooner concludes the number by arguing that treason committed against an illegitimate government is literally no treason at all. No treason, part two. The Constitution, one. The Constitution says we, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The meaning of this is simply we, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of the people is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money or render service, and to make it binding upon anyone his signature or other positive evidence of consent was as necessary as in the case of any other contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of the people of the United States would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form we, the people, is that the instrument offered membership to all the people of the United States, leaving it for them to accept or refuse it at their pleasure. The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say we the people of the town of A agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital or a theater for ourselves and our children. Such an agreement clearly could have no validity except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of the people of the town of A should ascent to this contract and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers and would deserve to be treated as such. Neither the conduct nor the rights of these signers would be improved at all by their saying to the dissenters, we offer you equal rights with ourselves in the benefits of the church, school, hospital or theater, which we propose to establish, and equal voice in the control of it. It would be a sufficient answer for the others to say we want no share in the benefits and no voice in the control of your institution and will do nothing to support it. The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States at the first was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the nearest farce and imposture binding upon nobody. The women, children and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their consent. In addition to this, there were in nearly or quite all the states property qualifications that excluded probably one half, two thirds or perhaps even three fourths of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it. Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more natural right or power to make political contracts binding upon succeeding generations than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them. Still further, even those who actually voted for the adoption of the Constitution did not pledge their faith for any specific time, since no specific time was named in the Constitution during which the Association should continue. It was therefore merely an association during pleasure, even as between the original parties to it. Still less, if possible, has it been anything more than a merely voluntary association during pleasure between the succeeding generations, who have never gone through, as their Fathers did, with so much even as any outward formality of adopting it, or of pledging their faith to support it. Such portions of them as pleased, and as the states permitted to vote, have only done enough by voting and paying taxes to keep the government in operation for the time being. And this, in the view of the Constitution, they have done voluntarily, and because it was for their interest or pleasure, and not because they were under any pledge or obligation to do it. Any one man, or any number of men, have had a perfect right at any time to refuse his or their further support, and nobody could rightfully object to his or their withdrawal. There is no escape from these conclusions if we say that the adoption of the Constitution was the act of the people as individuals and not the states as states. On the other hand, if we say that the adoption was the act of the states as states, it necessarily follows that they had the right to secede at pleasure in as much as they engaged for no specific time. The consent, therefore, that has been given, whether by individuals or by the states, has been, at most, only a consent for the time being, not an engagement for the future. In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist, a government that forces him to pay money, render services, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights under the peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself without his consent, so situated that, if he uses the ballot, he may become a master. If he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle where he must either kill others or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents. It is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot, which is a mere substitute for a bullet, because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered. That he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him. Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself that crushes them was one which they had voluntarily set up or even consented to. Therefore, a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently, we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others. 2. The Constitution says, treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. This is the only definition of treason given by the Constitution, and it is to be interpreted like all other criminal laws in the sense most favorable to liberty and justice. Consequently, the treason here spoken of must be held to be treason in fact, and not merely something that may have been falsely called by that name. To determine then what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the Codes of Kings and Zars and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud, who contemptuously call mankind their subjects, who claim to have a special license from heaven to rule on earth, who teach that it is a religious duty of mankind to obey them, who bribe a servile and corrupt priesthood to impress these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious, who spurn the idea that their authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their people, and who attempt to defame by the false epithet of traitors all who assert their own rights and the rights of their fellow men against such usurpations. Instead of regarding this false and columnius meaning of the word treason, we are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue, at its use in common life, and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other contracts or articles of association which men might voluntarily enter into with each other. The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason then necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer, one who practices injury while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor. Neither does a man who has once been my friend become a traitor by becoming an enemy. If before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy. And if he makes no unfair use of any advantage, which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power. For example, our fathers, even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in other respects, certainly were not traitors in fact after the 4th of July 1776. Since on that day, they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they repudiated his authority and should wage war against him. And they made no unfair use of any advantages which his confidence had previously placed in their power. It cannot be denied that in the late war, the southern people proved themselves to be open and avowed enemies and not treacherous friends. It cannot be denied that they gave us fair warning that they would no longer be our political associates, but would, if need were, fight for a separation. It cannot be alleged that they made any unfair use of advantages which our confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in their power. Therefore, they were not traitors in fact and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution. Furthermore, men are not traitors in fact who take up arms against the government without having disavowed allegiance to it, provided they do it, either to resist the usurpations of the government or to resist what they sincerely believed to be such usurpations. It is a maximum of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent, and this maximum is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For example, our fathers were not traitors in fact for resisting the British Crown before the 4th of July 1776, that is, before they had thrown off allegiance to him, provided they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights against his usurpations. Even if they were mistaken in their law, that mistake, if an innocent one, could not make them traitors in fact. For the same reason the Southern people, if they sincerely believed as it has been extensively if not generally conceded at the North that they did, in the so-called constitutional theory of state rights, did not become traitors in fact by acting upon it, and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution. Three, the Constitution does not say who will become traitors by levying war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. It is therefore only by inference or reasoning that we can know who will become traitors by these acts. Certainly if Englishmen, Frenchmen, Austrians, or Italians making no professions of support or friendship to the United States, levy war against them, or adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, they do not thereby make themselves traitors within the meaning of the Constitution. And why? Solely because they would not be traitors in fact. Making no professions of support or friendship, they would practice no treachery, deceit, or breach of faith. But if they should voluntarily enter either the civil or military service of the United States, and pledge fidelity to them, and should then betray the trusts reposed in them, either by turning their guns against the United States, or by giving aid and comfort to their enemies, they would be traitors in fact, and therefore traitors within the meaning of the Constitution and could be lawfully punished as such. There is not in the Constitution a syllable that implies that persons born within the territorial limits of the United States have allegiance imposed upon them on account of their birth in the country, or that they will be judged by any different rule on the subject of treason than persons of foreign birth. And there is no power in Congress to add to or alter the language of the Constitution on this point so as to make it more comprehensive than it is now. Therefore, treason in fact, that is actual treachery, deceit, or breach of faith, must be shown in the case of a native of the United States equally as in the case of a foreigner before he can be said to be a traitor. Congress has seen that the language of the Constitution was insufficient of itself to make a man a traitor on the ground of birth in this country who levies war against the United States but practices no treachery, deceit, or breach of faith. They have therefore, although they had no constitutional power to do so, apparently attempted to enlarge the language of the Constitution on this point, and they have enacted, quote, that if any person or persons owing allegiance to the United States of America shall levy war against them or shall adhere to their enemies giving them aid in comfort, such person or persons shall be judged guilty of treason against the United States and shall suffer death. It would be a sufficient answer to this enactment to say that it is utterly unconstitutional if its effect would be to make any man a traitor who would not have been one under the language of the Constitution. The whole pith of the act lies in the words persons owing allegiance to the United States, but this language really leaves the question where it was before for it does not attempt to show or declare who does owe allegiance to the United States. Although those who passed the act no doubt thought or wished others to think that allegiance was to be presumed against all born in this country, the Constitution itself uses no such words as allegiance, sovereignty, loyalty, subject, or any other term, such as is used by other governments to signify the services, fidelity, obedience, or other duty, which the people are assumed to owe to their government regardless of their own will in the matter. As the Constitution professes to rest wholly on consent, no one can owe allegiance, service, obedience, or any other duty to it or to the government created by it, except with his own consent. The word allegiance comes from the Latin words ad and ligo, signifying to bind to. Thus a man under allegiance to a government is a man bound to it, or bound to yield its support and fidelity, and governments founded otherwise than on consent hold that all persons born under them are under allegiance to them, that is, are bound to render them support, fidelity, and obedience, and are traitors if they resist them. But it is obvious that in truth and in fact no one but himself can bind anyone to support any government, and our Constitution admits this fact when it concedes that it derives its authority wholly from the consent of the people, and the word treason is to be understood in accordance with that idea. It is conceded that a person of foreign birth comes under allegiance to our government only by special voluntary contract. If a native has allegiance imposed upon him against his will, he is in a worse condition than the foreigner, for the latter can do as he pleases about assuming that obligation. The accepted interpretation of the Constitution therefore makes the foreigner a free person on this point while it makes the native a slave. The only difference, if there be any, between natives and foreigners in respect of allegiance is that a native has a right offered to him by the Constitution to come under allegiance to the government if he so pleas, and thus entitle himself to membership in the body politic. His allegiance cannot be refused, whereas a foreigner's allegiance can be refused if the government so pleas. The Constitution certainly supposes that the crime of treason can be committed only by man as an individual. It would be very curious to see a man indicted, convicted, or hanged otherwise than as an individual, or accused of having committed his treason otherwise than as an individual, and yet it is clearly impossible that anyone can be personally guilty of treason, can be a traitor in fact, unless he, as an individual, has in some way voluntarily pledged his faith and fidelity to the government. Certainly no man or body of men could pledge it for him without his consent, and no man or body of men have any right to presume it against him when he has not pledged it himself. Five. It is plain therefore that if when the Constitution says treason, it means treason, treason in fact, and nothing else. There is no ground at all for pretending that the Southern people have committed that crime. But if, on the other hand, when the Constitution says treason, it means what the Tsar and the Kaiser mean by treason, then our government is, in principle, no better than theirs, and has no claim whatever to be considered a free government. Six. One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support, and one certain proof that a government is not free is that it coerces more or less persons to support it against their will. All governments, the worst on earth and the most tyrannical on earth, are free governments to that portion of the people who voluntarily support them, and all governments, though the best on earth in other respects, are nevertheless tyrannies to that portion of the people whether few or many who are compelled to support them against their will. A government is like a church or any other institution in these respects. There is no other criterion whatever by which to determine whether a government is a free one or not than the single one of its depending or not depending solely on voluntary support. Seven. No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either taxation without consent is robbery or it is not. If it is not, then any number of men who choose may at any time associate, call themselves a government, assume absolute authority over all weaker than themselves, plunder them at will, and kill them if they resist. If, on the other hand, taxation without consent is robbery, it necessarily follows that every man who has not consented to be taxed has the same natural right to defend his property against a tax gatherer that he has to defend it against a highwayman. Eight. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the principles of this argument are as applicable to the state governments as to the national one. The opinions of the South on the subjects of allegiance and treason have been equally erroneous with those of the North. The only difference between them has been that the South has had that a man was primarily under involuntary allegiance to the state government while the North held that he was primarily under a similar allegiance to the United States government, whereas in truth he was under no involuntary allegiance to either. Nine. Obviously there can be no law of treason more stringent than has now been stated consistently with political liberty. In the very nature of things there can never be any liberty for the weaker party on any other principle. And political liberty always means liberty for the weaker party. It is only the weaker party that is ever repressed. The strong are always free by virtue of their superior strength. So long as government is a mere contest as to which of two parties shall rule the other, the weaker must always succumb. And whether the contest be carried on with ballots or bullets, the principle is the same. For under the theory of government now prevailing, the ballot either signifies a bullet or it signifies nothing. And no one can consistently use a ballot unless he intends to use a bullet if the latter should be needed to ensure submission to the former. Ten. The practical difficulty with our government has been that most of those who have administered it have taken it for granted that the constitution, as it is written, was a thing of no importance. That it neither said what it meant nor meant what it said. That it was gotten up by swindlers who said a great many good things, which they did not mean, and meant a great many bad things, which they dared not say. That these men, under the false pretense of a government resting on the consent of the whole people, designed to entrap them into a government of a part who should be powerful and fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker portion out of all the good things that were said but not meant, and subject them to all the bad things that were meant but not said. And most of those who have administered the government have assumed that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect in the place of the written constitution. Of all these swindles, the treason swindle is the most flagitious. It is the most flagitious because it is equally flagitious in principle with any, and it includes all the others. It is the instrumentality by which all the others are made effective. A government that can, at pleasure, accuse, shoot, and hang men as traitors for the one general offense of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. The result, and a natural one, has been that we have had governments, state, and national devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practiced upon their victims. And these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives. A war carried on upon one side for chattel slavery and on the other for political slavery, upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed and this war waged by men and the descendants of men who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal and could owe neither service to individuals nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent. 11. No attempt or pretense that was ever carried into practical operation amongst civilized men, and less possibly the pretense of a divine right on the part of some, to govern and enslave others embodied so much of shameless absurdity, falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villainy of every kind, as the attempt or pretense of establishing a government by consent, and getting the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in subjection by force. Such a government is a mere conspiracy of the strong against the weak, it no more rests on consent than does the worst government on earth. What substitute for their consent is offered to the weaker party, whose rights are thus annihilated, struck out of existence by the stronger. Only this, their consent is presumed. That is, these usurpers condescendingly and graciously presume that those whom they enslave consent to surrender their all of life, liberty, and property into the hands of those who thus usurp dominion over them. That is, these usurpers condescendingly and graciously presume that those whom they enslave consent to surrender their all of life, liberty, and property into the hands of those who thus usurp dominion over them. And it is pretended that this presumption of their consent, when no actual consent has been given, is sufficient to save the rights of the victims and to justify the usurpers. As well might the highwaymen pretend to justify himself by presuming that the traveler consents to part with his money. As well might the assassin justify himself by simply presuming that his victim consents to part with his life. As well the holder of chattel slaves attempts to justify himself by presuming that they consent to his authority and to the whips and the robbery which he practices upon them. The presumption is simply a presumption that the weaker party consent to be slaves. Such is the presumption on which alone our government relies to justify the power it maintains over its unwilling subjects. And it was to establish that presumption as the inexorable and perpetual law of this country that so much money and blood have been expended. That was Lysander Spooner's No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority, Part Two. This episode was written by Anthony Comegna, produced by Mark McDaniel and narrated by Caleb Brown. If you liked the podcast you've heard today please rate it and review it on iTunes and of course find more classics of liberty at libertarianism.org.


We'll be discussing today where we have been and where we are heading, but I think it's only appropriate before we start to acknowledge someone in the audience who was there when it started, who was working in the embassy in 1960 helping to make the alliance. Mr. Albert Seligman, Albert, if you're I think back here, why don't you stand up because you've done good. The alliance is still strong and we're absolutely delighted to have him and to have so many people who have throughout the years helped to build the alliance. Let's move right on to our program now and we're going to have all four speakers speak one after the other both on the past and the future and then we'll open it up for our Q&A session and we'll start with Professor Kitayoka from the University of Tokyo. Professor please. How many minutes? About seven minutes. Okay. There's a trap door at ten minutes that makes you disappear into the bowels of the willards. Thank you Ralph. It's a really great pleasure for me to be here to speak about security relations. I cannot get into the topic without touching up on the history before the security treaty namely 150 years ago some 70 Japanese people stayed in this hotel. They came to exchange the instrument of ratification with the Japan, U.S. Commerce and Navigation Treaty. Since from that time to up to the end of the Russo-Japanese war the relationship between two countries was excellent, very good. Some people say that it was because Japan was a good student to the United States, Japan United States was a very good teacher. It's part of the truth but more importantly I believe that it was made possible by the commitment to the same kind of policy value and doctrine which is an open door doctrine. Open door at that time meant more business based on the rules. That provides the equal opportunity to every country, everyone. And also it meant the opposition against the division of China which was underway mainly by Russian Empire. So we were on the same side and Japan was assisted very much not only by the United States but also by the United States very much at the war time with Russia. But after that Japan's commitment to the open door doctrine became ambiguous. We continued to make a commitment to that but sometimes Japan violated the doctrine. And then finally after 1931 when Japan ventured into a military expansion Japan moved from the side of the respectful law to a rule by force and then it went on to Pearl Harbor and the war between two countries. So what I'd like to stress is on which principles we are behaving. That's a very important part of our relationship. In 1945 a new era started between two countries. What I'd like to point out is that unlike Germany Japan was not divided geographically but Japan was in a way divided into two camps. One was pro-capitalist, pro-west, pro-American and the other was a more neutrality oriented pro-socialism and pacifist. I mean those people who didn't want to touch upon or discuss anything related to military affairs. Of course the former was dominant but it was very difficult because that part was encouraged by Article 9 of the Constitution. From that time after six, seven years of occupation Japan regained independence in 1951 but of course this treaty was very much one sided. In this treaty the essence was only one article which provides that Japan grants and the US accepts the right to dispose forces, land forces, sea forces, air forces in and about Japan and those forces can be utilized to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security in East Asia and also the security of Japan. That can be or might be used. It's not obligatory on the part of the United States to defend Japan and also it was those forces can be used to put down the internal disturbances. This was not equal to it at all. So that's why those successors to Yoshida, Yoshida was the architecture of the security treaty, those people who replaced Yoshida tried to change it. It took place in 1954 when Yoshida was replaced by Hatoyama. It is as if we are in a kind of deja vu. The grandson of Yoshida was replaced by the grandson of Hatoyama and then the data tried to change the security relationship. Actually, in 1955, Foreign Minister Shigei Mitsu visited the United States in August and met with John Foster Dallas, Secretary of State and he proposed to make it more equal. His proposal included proposal of the withdrawal of American land forces within six years from Japan and also all the rest within another six years. So all together all the military forces should go in 12 years. It was rejected by Dallas sharply. He said that could Japan come to help the United States Army if military, if Guam was attacked by some foreign country. Foreign Minister Shigei Mitsu said yes and Dallas sharply said I could not understand your interpretation of the Constitution. Actually, this is the basis of the difficult relations between those two countries. Originally Article 9 prohibits the military forces in Japan and then beyond this Article 9, Japanese government created the interpretation that Japan could have some military forces but only for purely defensive purpose. In other words, they cannot be used beyond that. That was why it was so difficult to go into the reciprocal relationship between those two countries. That's why it was so one-sided in the first original treaty. When Mr. Kishi, Nobuki Kishi became the prime minister in February 1957, he soon found it was not sustainable on this basis and then he determined with a close consultation with Ambassador MacArthur who had a strong support from President Eisenhower to go to the revision of the Security Treaty in which he tried to insert some clothes on prior consultation in which the United States was obliged to make a prior consultation to Japan when there is a major shift, major change in the deployment of the forces and also its equipment. Also, when the United States is going to get into the military operation initiated from Japan, they have to make some prior consultations. Actually, I'm a chair of the team to investigate into the secret related to this. I do not have the freedom to speak about that but anyhow, certainly I can say that those people on the American side and Japanese side have worked very closely and very hard to try to overcome the difficulty and to fulfill the gap between those two people's mindset. And then I'm not thinking that we should blame those people for the secrecy about it. Anyhow, the Kishi's success in the new treaty was a very, very important event in it which was followed by also by another successful statecraft by Prime Minister Sato and also President Nixon. So since then there have been ups and downs in the Security Treaty but actually we have not gone too much beyond that. And also the ideas that Mr. Kishi had envisioned had not been perfectly fulfilled. How to make our relations more equal and more tougher? I'd like to remind you that the importance of the commitment is not only on the security issues but also to the values. In the second article two of the Security Treaty is written that we have to strengthen our system in political and economic freedom. This is exactly what we are facing even now. The growing, rapidly growing influence of China, particularly its military power, has been a source of concern on our side. And I'm not particularly pessimistic about the future of China, but we hope to have low abiding, good citizens of the international community. I hope that China will be one of those countries. And until then we need a solid security relationship between Japan and the United States. So therefore the commitment between two governments are very needed and also that we have to remember our commitment to the values and we have to remember the importance of our national powers with which we can contribute to the peace and security and prosperity in East Asia. I have to stop here. Thank you. Dr. Perry. Well, Japan has been asked to reflect on the history of the U.S.-Japan alliance. 50 years is a long time and a lot has happened in that time. So in the limited time I will have I must be very selective and I've decided to focus my framing comments on that slice of the history that occurred during the 1990s because I had relevant personal experience during that period and because I think those experiences offer important insights in the challenge the alliance faces today. When I became Secretary of Defense in 1994 I perceived two major issues in U.S.-Japan relations. We had a long-term issue of how to adapt the alliance to important changes in circumstances and we had a long-simmering issue concerning U.S. forces based on Okinawa. Shortly after I became Secretary that simmering issue came to a boil when an Okinawan girl was raped by a Marine. Immediately after that tragedy occurred I made an unscheduled trip to Japan to apologize for the American crime and while in Japan I ordered an immediate change in the command oversight of American forces in Okinawa and then jointly with the Japanese Defense Agency and the Foreign Ministry established an action committee on base realignment. While we were working to resolve that issue I had detailed discussions with Assistant Secretary Joe Nye on the dramatic changes in circumstances of forming the alliance several decades earlier, particularly of the remarkable growth of Japan's economy, the maturing of its democracy, the growing capability of Japanese self-defense forces and the ending of the Cold War. The result of those discussions was that I asked Secretary Nye to begin a dialogue with the Japanese counterparts to reach a common understanding of how the basis for the U.S.-Japan alliance had changed since the time we created the alliance and to prepare a roadmap of how the alliance should evolve in the future. Joe prepared a white paper which I thought at the time was a brilliant piece of work. Indeed I think that it is still valid today. It recognized that the U.S.-Japan alliance was the basis of security and stability in the entire Asia-Pacific region and the key to the unprecedented economic growth and increasing prosperity enjoyed by the citizens of that region. And it laid out a plan for the renewal and rejuvenation of the treaty. Joe's white paper had three concrete results. It led to a recognition by both nations of the overriding importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance. It led to the American President and the Japanese Prime Minister renewing the treaty in 1996. And it serves as a touchstone for the ongoing discussions on Okinawan-based realignment. That is, both sides recognized that the alliance was so important that we simply had to find a compromise solution to the difficult problems of base alignment. On base realignment I saw that the Americans could not simply reject the Japanese concerns as unimportant but had to identify with those concerns and try to find a way to accommodate them. My Japanese counterpart had to identify with the extent to which Americans perceived that the Okinawan bases were critical to maintaining the security and stability of the region. As a result, we did reach a compromise solution that was acceptable to both sides. I left office in 1997, but with a little more than a year after I left, a new crisis emerged with North Korea. And President Clinton asked me to come back temporarily to craft a new policy for dealing with North Korea. I recognized from the beginning that the North Korean problem could not be more important to the United States than it was to South Korea and to Japan. And that North Korea had a history of playing off one country against the other. So my first task was to request the Japanese and South Korean governments to appoint an official to work with me in preparing the new policy. The Japanese government appointed Deputy Foreign Minister Yoko Kato, who proved to be a tower of strength in the months ahead. The three of us worked for four months to arrive at a policy that we believe served the needs of all three of our countries and then got the approval of our leaders for this policy. The resulting policy is sometimes called the Perry policy. But I want to state clearly that such a name mischaracterizes the extent to which it resulted from a truly joint effort. Indeed, it might just well have been called the Kato policy. Yoko Kato. So what lessons can we learn today from the three efforts that I have described? The Okonohan base realignment was never brought to a conclusion and the issue is still simmering today. I believe that the compromise solution we worked out in 1995 was a good one, but it's probably not optimum today. What is valid today is the basis on which we arrived at our solution, namely that the alliance still is of overriding importance and should still drive both sides to seek a compromise that is acceptable to both sides. On the North Korean policy we crafted in 1999, I still believe that it could have led to a satisfactory resolution of the North Korean nuclear problem. But the following administration, when it came to office in 2001, broke off discussions with North Korea so we can never know for sure. In the meantime, the specific recommendations of the North Korean policy report have been overtaken by time, with the formation of the Six-Party talks and with the subsequent nuclear tests of North Korea. But still valid is the imperative for the three allies to work together to arrive at a common perception of the problem and a common negotiating strategy. And the understanding that any successful strategy with North Korea must be based on a diplomatic approach that includes a serious element of coercion. We had more successes on the third issue I've discussed, the U.S.-Japan Treaty. It was in fact renewed and rejuvenated, but of course that was 14 years ago. Today we have a new world in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as new administrations in our two countries, so it is time again to consider how to rejuvenate the treaty. But in this consideration, one should understand that one thing remains constant. The U.S.-Japan alliance is still the key to security, stability, and prosperity in the region. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. When we started this process 16 years ago, two of the mainstays, the superstars in the room at the first meeting were Rich Armagedge and Yukio Okamoto. And they have been with us for almost every meeting since then, giving us the same sort of guidance and message. So we're absolutely delighted to have both of them with us now to talk more about the future. And then we start with you, Rich, if I can, please. Thank you, Ralph. First of all, let me add my voice to those who've expressed appreciation and gratitude for the activities of the MSDF, particularly the Indian Ocean. That mission has come to a close, but I think we ought to acknowledge that many of our Japanese colleagues did some very hard and dangerous work for which the international community, not the United States as much, we have oilers. We can take care of ourselves for which the international community has expressed gratitude, and I want to express appreciation as well. So look around the room and see Al Seligman and Tom Hubbard and Evans and Torkle, Jim Kelly, and others, fellows whom I've worked together with for 30 years on U.S.-Japan relations. I'm reminded of a story. It seems a lady came into her doctor, and after an examination, the doctor said to her, Madam, I have some bad news. You've got a week to live.  Is there anything I can do? And he said, well, the only thing I can suggest is you marry a specialist on U.S.-Japan security. She said, oh, well, that helped me live longer. He said, no, but a week will seem like forever. Look, I'm going to talk a little bit about where we've been as well, but in recent times, look, all of us in this room, I believe, almost without exception are somewhat guilty for the situation we now find ourselves in. All of us, I think, weren't realizing that the Minshu Party and most of us in this room actually speak a different language. When we talk about deterrence, I think everyone in this room knows what deterrence is, but I'm not sure that, and it's not a fault, but it's just the fact that the D.J.P. didn't understand, have the same concept of deterrence. We didn't pick up on this. We didn't catch it. We didn't get it. We all read the manifesto before the election. We understood what was in it. I think all of us, at least on the American side, were shocked to find that a political party might actually do what they said in their platform. I mean, it would be such a surprise here if our politicians did that.  We didn't spread our network broadly enough to make sure that everyone, Americans and Japanese understood, may not have agreed with them, at least understood the same language that we, what we meant when we talked in terms of security and deterrence and extended deterrence and nuclear deterrent, et cetera. This, this language, I think evidence, the difference in language and difference in thought process evidenced itself most clearly when we heard the talk from the new government about the desire for equality, which is fantastic. I think every American said, that's wonderful. We will no longer have a Japan that's in terms of their defense spending to GDP will be in number 143 in the world. Maybe they'll pick up the pace a little bit, but of course, what was meant by the DJP is they wanted more quality in the decision making. I would have thought that a 10-year discussion to find a replacement facility for Denma would have indicated that Japan was hardly a puppy dog in the relation. These were 10 arduous years of negotiations, but be it as it may, we are where we are. And I think the Bush administration, which I was apart, many of us here were apart, has to take some of the blame, particularly for the latter two years, because particularly on the question of Korea, we really didn't do a very good job. We didn't share with our Japanese friends as we should, and had we had up to that point, we were drifting away from a policy of denuclearization to actually one of counterproliferation without ever announcing it. And I think this allowed the beginnings of some questions to creep in, even among our very close friends on the Japanese side. And that's our bad, as we say here. Now, where are we today? Well, the Japanese public has spoken and as Kurt indicated today, we of course respect that decision. The irony here is the United States for years and years has had a desire for real, genuine two-party democracy. We got it. And so we're going to live with it, as Kurt said at lunch. And we're going to deal with it. We're going to work with it. And we respect it. But it is a fact that our alliance has been adrift for at least four months. Probably will be adrift in some fashion or another until a decision is reached on Futenma replacement, Hanoko or something else, and may actually go in or pass the decision may actually go past the upper House election. I personally am a little skeptical that we'll get a May decision, it might have to wait till till July and the upper House election. So clearly, temporarily, the alliance is in second place behind politics in Japan. And as I think that's a fact, it's not a I'm not being prejudicial, I'm just pointing out a fact. And you got to put this in a little context. Is the Hanoko or Futenma replacement facility, is this the big deal that many are trying to make it? Well, it's perhaps a bigger deal when you put it into the following context. For the United States, a decision to delay Futenma is obviously a sovereign right of the government of Japan, no question about it. But the backdrop had to do with the Prime Minister going to China and talking about an East Asian community, which may or may not have included the United States at the time. There were some questions about whether it did or did not. I think there was a small bit of misunderstanding, not a large one, but a small bit of misunderstanding between the Prime Minister and our President at the meeting, otherwise good meeting in Tokyo. There is there was a specter of the Japanese Liberation Army descending on Beijing recently. And the same gentleman who led that descent on Beijing have not been to Washington for 10 years. So there's a backdrop to this that makes questions come up in people's mind. And finally, none of us have a true understanding, and we're trying to gain it, of the real hearts of the leaders of the Minshu Party. We know some of them we don't know enough about enough of them. So this is the backdrop that makes Futenma an even larger issue that it might be otherwise. And it's quite clear, and I think others have said it, we can't, the United States, the Americans in this room can't want this relationship more than our Japanese friends do. We can't. That's just a fact. Now, where should we go? Well, we probably ought to take a real deep breath and relax a little bit. We're going to have an alliance after whatever decision is made on Futenma. I'm personally pessimistic that it will be a positive decision about moving to Hanoko, and I don't think difficult decisions get better by waiting. At least that's what my parents always taught me. But that's my personal view. I may be proven wrong. But I think that's where we are. Therefore, for the Americans in the room working closely with our Japanese colleagues, we better have a plan B, and that's going to be very heavily influenced by military needs so we can protect and project our alliance responsibilities. Second, I think that there will be a bit of a need to regain a little bit of trust. I'm not suggesting at all that there's been a tear or a rip or a rent in this trust, but there are some questions that have entered into many minds on the importance, how important the alliance is viewed in Japan. So we can work on that a bit, but we really need to work on reassuring the region. There are no countries, as far as I'm familiar with the possible exception of China, who hasn't come into the Gaima show with some suggestions that we really need to repair this relationship with the United States and get on with business, because it's a great deal of nervousness. Notwithstanding whatever decision comes out of our friends in Tokyo on a futenmer replacement, we need to make sure we're together, I think, are working in the region to reassure them. Now, how do we do this? Well, I would suggest a number of ways, and I'm not the founder of Wisdom on this by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that maybe the US and Japan are working together on peacekeeping, training, et cetera. So we're better able to be peacekeepers if our governments decide it might be a good signal to the region and has benefits to both of us. I would think that something like a joint MSDF, US Navy, medical civic action program, dental civic action program in some of the island nations and some of the islands of Indonesia, et cetera, is something that would be widely respected by those countries, widely needed by many of the countries, and I think something that would again reassure our friends and have some practical humanitarian benefits. It seems to me that anti-piracy, more activities by Japan, Djibouti and Somalia might be a very good way to sort of get back in the game a little bit if the government in Tokyo would want to do that. And maybe finally, something that I think is personally very special to Mr. Hatayama, and that is the developing relationship with India that Japan has. He has a personal affection. He's visited India many, many times. We're so proud in the United States of our having developed a good relationship with India. Japan is working hard. I mean, since they took a large group of business from there, the Japanese are all, the Indians are all about Japan these days. So maybe some activities together working with the Indians or something that might help us to get back on the bicycle again, and start riding again. And these are not an exhaustive list, but I think we need to start thinking of things we can do together, as I say, to get back on that bicycle and ride. So thank you very much, Ralph. Thank you very much. Yukio? Thank you, Ralph. Sorry, I will have to read out from my speaking memo because my biological translation machine does not work fast enough to tell you all the things I want to tell you. Today we are celebrating not just the signing of the treaty, but the whole Japan-US alliance, the linchpin of the security of Japan, of the East Asia, and more recently, the entire West Pacific and India Ocean. Thanks to the vision and hard work of several generations of political leaders, government of shows, and common citizens, it has endured and flourished. This alliance was forged 50 years ago under political and economic conditions, vastly different from today. 50 years ago, an expansionist and nuclear-armed Soviet Union confronted us across the Sea of Japan and everywhere in the world. The PRC, another agent of global communist revolution, was recovering from the famine and chaos of Mao Zedong's great leap forward. The Berlin Wall had not yet been built. South Korea and Taiwan were under military rule. They would be joined by the Philippines of half a decade later. One month after the treaty was signed, Air Force surgeon Maurice Fulnoy was killed in South Vietnam as one of the first victims. His name is in the very first line on the wall of the Vietnam War Memorial here in Washington. And I wonder, yes, according to your recommendation, which in Japan 50 years ago, as the new security treaty was signed, the National Diet Building was surrounded by 300,000 demonstrators and protesters. Look at the very different world we have today. The Soviet Union imploded into fragments. The remaining bits of the Berlin Wall are now sold to tourists as souvenirs. Europe is now a giant union. China has risen to a global power in terms of military strength, economy, and world politics. South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines are passionate democratic societies. And a remarkable number of the world population now lives in countries where they choose their own leaders in free and open elections. East Asia has joined Europe and North America as a center of world wealth and stability. And since the current economic crisis began, has become the main engine of world's economic growth. After its domestic upheaval in 1960, Japan settled under the alliance onto a long-term, tranquil growth path, becoming a very mature state of the world in every respect. And now, the security treaty is supported by amazing 76% of the total population. If you, this regard, don't know, it's almost a unanimous supporter within a democratic society. Throughout these five decades of instability and transformation, the Japanese Security Treaty has been the guarantor of stability and peace in East Asia. The alliance has been providing, as a public good, the base conditions necessary for the extraordinary development of the region. The Japanese alliance has succeeded in its mission, not by seeking to dominate the region, but by seeking to be a status quo preservation force, deterring and deflecting those powers who would seek to rearrange the political and economic boundaries of East Asia through force. Military alliances are based, of course, on cold calculations of national interest, of balances of power, and of tons of steel and TNT. However, an alliance like ours cannot endure unless it is based also upon human feelings. I have felt this strongly over the past few weeks as a confusion between Japan and the United States over the relocation of Temma base in Okinawa has deepened. I won't mention further. I have very strong personal feelings about it, but in order to save time, I just leave the frustration to my neighbor sitting next to me. I, however, the, I'll just say this. The recent turmoil began when the election campaign promises of the DPJ fanned the emotions of Okinawa people, leading them to believe that the base can be transferred outside the prefecture without much realistic prospect. Now, Temma has become the most painful issue between the two countries, but I will dare say this. In terms of the alliance essence, Temma is not a fundamental problem. If, for example, the Japanese government cannot accept the home porting of the nuclear propelled aircraft carrier at Yokosuka, that is a serious fracturing of the alliance. If Prime Minister Hatoyama seeks the withdrawal of the Marines from Okinawa to Guam, this is a serious matter for the alliance, but no such things are happening or will happen. Temma is not something to bring about a divorce between the two countries. The good news is that the DPJ now realizes, albeit too late, that they made a mistake. I don't know if this will be any consolation to you, but they are trying to salvage the situation. In my eyes, it is almost amazing to see the government, which is essentially based upon labor unions and the less privileged classes, normally destined to carry out the leftist agenda, is actually struggling to solve this issue with a minimal impact on the alliance. Our urgent aim should be to, as quickly as possible, section off the Temma issue and shut the curtain on the development of further instability. We must look beyond. We have to re-establish our natural mutual trust fast and soon. There are topics that urgently needed to be addressed. Resetting the relationship back to where it was six months ago, fine. What else is there that Japan must do? During the 1980s, long years through the era, we raised the level of the alliance through the introduction of new vessels and airplanes to the basis of Yokosuka and Misawa, fortified roles and missions between the two nations, negotiated weapons technology transfer and participation in SDI and so forth. We took a joy in the evolution of the alliance. Those are the days of the people which mentioned at the outset. It was an era when we believed that the road ahead would lead Japan, would lead to Japan eventually becoming an ally like the United Kingdom or Canada. However, in subsequent years, it became clear that there exists very difficult limitations on Japan. As we painfully experienced through 1990 operation Desert Shield or in the current OEF in Afghanistan, Japan has been unable to send SDF into, quote, dangerous areas, unquote, where there are high probabilities of casualties. It will take quite a while for Japan to cross that river to become a true member of the risk-sharing international community. What should we do in the meantime then? Very soon, under the DPJ, Japan has to find new framework of peaceful deployment of our forces, somewhere in between battlefields and money. Fight against poverty, CO2 emissions, disaster reliefs, economic assistance to countries with security problems, pandemics, joint research on energy and resources. There are many positive fields Japan and the United States must work together to enhance the welfare of the world. We must bear no efforts to increase the cooperation in these so-called soft issues. But still, the core of the alliance is the hard security. The withdrawal of JMSD vessels from the Indian Ocean, I believe was a clear mistake. The soft agenda, while it is utterly important, cannot be a substitute for fulfilling one's global obligations in the hard security matters. We need to see a first case, even a small step, by the DPJ government contributing to peace and security for the first time, not through money, not through pacifism. We need a positive case for the alliance for the DPJ to change its course. Having said that, we Japan must not forget that what is most important is the strengthening of Japan's own defense capabilities and a very close military to military cooperation between the two countries. Notwithstanding the positive developments of the world in the last 50 years, we have a situation in North Asia where threats are increasing rather than decreasing due to North Korea and China. My time is limited, so I will just conclude by saying something about China's blue water naval expansionism, which I believe to be the more important of the two. Currently, China is aiming to possess the complete maritime supremacy in the west of the so-called first island chain, which starts from the Japanese mainland of Kyushu through Okinawa islands, Taiwan and the Philippines. China has declared the parasols, the Spratlys, Ucklesfield Bank, Taiwan, Pung Ho, and Japan's Senkaku, all territories of China. All these islands inside the first island chain were integrated into Chinese territory by their domestic law of 1992. Furthermore, in between the first island chain and the second island chain, which goes down from Yokosuka through Israel and through Iwo Jima, Guam and the Marianas, China is trying to develop and access denial capability against U.S. naval forces. The traditional priority for China between the two island chains was to develop the ability to attack Taiwan from the east. However, the priority nowadays is on securing maritime interest and natural resources. These are the reasons why China is deploying 69 submarines, including nine nuclear powered, in a phase of against Japan's modest 16 conventional powered submarines. To this China will be adding aircraft carriers. Ignoring this maritime buildup and hoping that the Chinese navy can be restrained by paying courtesy calls to Beijing is to be too trusting. In response to the changed circumstances in the aftermath of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, Japan and the United States revitalized the alliance through the 1996 joint declaration whereby Japan-U.S. security cooperation has expanded to a global theater of cooperation. It is ironic that having taken the step in the last decade, we find ourselves confronted with the situation where after the first decade of the 21st century, the rapid rise of China is bringing back the focal point of our alliance to the security treaties conventional role of preserving the peace and security of the Far East. In a manner that redoubles again the significance of alliance, we have no time to spare for squabbling. Thank you. Thank you, Yukio. Thank you to all four speakers for being very concise and yet very insightful.


Hey, do your children also yawn when they hear the word math? Well, not everyone loves math. Hey, I am not blaming the subject. You know what's wrong here? We are using the same old techniques of learning. But now it's time to make learning more fun, colourful and interactive. Download our Kids Math app from Google Play Store and surprise your child with our whole new learning experience.  Plus, the AND reward that your child gets after solving each math problem correctly will push him to do better next time. Isn't that what we want? Now go and explore the app with your little one. You can find the link in the description of this video. And do not forget to share your feedback in the comment section below. Bye-bye.


This study compared several methods for estimating stem volume, stem number, and basal area from airborne laser scanning ALS data. The results showed that the best method was a regression model based on height and density metrics derived from 0.5M raster cells, which had a root mean square error, RMSE, of 37.3%. The worst method was a model based on height and density metrics derived from the entire field plot, which had an RMSE of 41.9%. Additionally, the authors found that area-based regression models using height and density metrics from the ALS data were more accurate than single tree-based information derived from local maxima in a normalized digital surface model, NDSM, which had RMSEs of 52.7% for stem number and 21.5% for basal area. Furthermore, the accuracy of these estimates depended on the filter size and the conditions of the applied filter. This article was authored by Eva Lindbergh and Marcus Hallows. We are article.tv, links in the description below.