Tag Archive : education

/ education

Projecting the Future of Project Management


There will be a demand for 87.7 million project
managers by 2027, according to Project Management Institute. Failure to anticipate for this projected demand
could result in a loss of $207.9 billion in gross domestic product by the same year. An increased demand for project managers comes
from a combination of an increase in jobs requiring project-oriented skills, project
managers retiring and an increase in demand for project talent, especially in China and
India. Project managers must have a wide variety
of skills, including technical knowledge of how to complete a project, business acumen
and leadership skills. The future of this type of role is moving
to a more gig-style structure. Managers are avoiding the overhead of hiring
additional workers and keeping budgets simpler by hiring a freelancer or outside company
to complete projects. However, this doesn’t always bode well for
companies seeking project managers with strong leadership skills. If a company chooses to have a full-time project
manager, it’s up to the company to train them to be better leaders and incorporate
lessons into their work to accelerate growth. With freelancers, it’s up to the individual
to gain this education. Experts in this area are working to improve
project management education in schools, which tend to be at the university level and focus
on technical skills. Still, soft skills need to be honed. Companies also need to develop internal project
management training programs to help develop their own workforce. To learn more about the future of project
management, read the full story on talenteconomy.io.

Top 25 Amazing Facts About Elephants

April 8, 2020 | Articles, Blog | No Comments

Top 25 Amazing Facts About Elephants


25 Amazing Facts About Elephants… Most living creatures are amazing in their
own different ways. But what most people don’t realize is, elephants
are even more amazing when you discover some really awesome facts! You are about to make an exciting discovery
about elephants, which I’m sure will make you appreciate these amazing creatures much
better. 1. If an Elephant dies, it’s family members
take very good care of the bones. 2. On average, the ear sizes of an African
elephant and an Asian elephant are very different. African elephant’s ears are three times
larger than those of Asian elephants. 3. African elephants tend to use their long
ears for reasons such as signaling others and protection. 4. The average adult elephant poops 80 pounds
a day! 5. Both African and Asian elephants use their
ears as an air conditioner. 6. During World War II, the very first bomb
dropped on Berlin by the Allies, killed the only elephant in Berlin Zoo. 7. An elephant has been tried and hanged for
murder back in 1916. 8. This large mammal can drink up to 80 gallons
of water in one single day. 9. The smell of water is so familiar to them
that they can recognize it from a distance of three miles! 10. Elephants are the only mammal that cannot
jump. 11. Each elephant has completely unique ears. 12. They can swim for long distances. 13. They have a pulse rate of 27. 14. They have a poor hearing, despite having
such large ears. 15. They are known to live for as long as
70 years. 16. An elephant will spend about 16 hours
eating in a single day. 17. Elephants sleep very little. These mammals
are known to sleep for about 5 hours a night. 18. An elephant sleeps while standing. 19. Their trunk has no bones. Over 150,000
muscles and nerves provide the trunk’s flexibility. 20. An elephant’s skin is tough, and about
1 inch thick! 21. The elephant has enough control over its
power to be able to grasp and lift a raw egg with the trunk without breaking the shell. 22. Elephants use their finger-like projections
at the end of their trunks to scratch itchy skin behind their ears, or to wipe the dust
away from their eyes. 23. An elephant’s trunk can also serve as
a straw or a hose. 24. An elephant fills its trunk with up to
5 quarts of water and then empties it into its mouth in order to drink. 25. The elephant listens with its feet as
well as its ears. When an elephant speaks, it creates a low-pitched rumbling sound that
is nearly inaudible but sends vibrations through the earth. What do you think about these interesting
facts? Please tell us in a comment below and share. Don’t forget to subscribe to our channel to
get more interesting videos. If you like our video, please share it with
your friends.

Top 15 Amazing Facts About Flamingos

April 7, 2020 | Articles, Blog | No Comments

Top 15 Amazing Facts About Flamingos


Top 15 Amazing Facts About Flamingos… Flamingos are easily recognizable due to their
famously long neck and pink colored feathers. Check out these top 15 fun facts about flamingos! 1. There are only 6 species of flamingos. 2. Wild flamingos are pink because they consume
vast quantities of algae and insects. 3. Flamingos are easily recognizable birds
as they spend most of their time standing on one leg. 4. There are 19 bones in a flamingo’s neck. 5. Their beaks and feathers are made of a
tough substance called keratin. 6. The bend halfway down the flamingo’s
leg is actually its ankle, not its knee! 7. Flamingo’s stand on one leg in water
because it reduces the amount of body heat lost by the cold water. 8. Flamingos mostly lay one large egg at a
time. The eggs weigh between 115 to 140 grams. 9. Females can lay two eggs at once, however,
it is uncommon that both eggs will hatch. 10. 1 out of 300 people has an irrational
phobia of flamingos. 11. The oldest flamingo on record lived to
44 years old at the Philadelphia Zoo. 12. There are more plastic flamingos in the
USA than real ones! 13. Flamingos feel most secure when they are
crowded together. 14. A group of flamingos is called a flock 15. The word “flamingo” originates from
the Latin word meaning “flame”. What do you think about these interesting facts?Please
tell us in a comment below and share. Don’t forget to subscribe to our channel to get
more interesting videos. If you like our video, please share it with your friends.

Top 40 Amazing Facts About Liam Neeson

April 6, 2020 | Articles, Blog | No Comments

Top 40 Amazing Facts About Liam Neeson


As of 2020, Liam Neeson’s net worth is approximately
145 million dollars, making him one of the richest actors of all time. HERE ARE Top 40 Facts About Liam Neeson… 1. Liam Neeson is an actor from Northern Ireland. His full name is Liam John Neeson. Neeson was born on 7 June 1952 in Ballymena,
County Antrim, Northern Ireland. 2. His father, Bernard “Barney” Neeson,
was a school caretaker while his mother Katherine “Kitty” Neeson (née Brown), was a cook. The third of four siblings, he has three sisters:
Elizabeth, Bernadette, and Rosaleen. Raised as a Roman Catholic, he was named Liam
after the local priest. 3. At age 9, Neeson began boxing lessons at
the All Saints Youth Club and later became Ulster’s amateur senior boxing champion. 4. He abandoned boxing, and entered Queen’s
University Belfast with the intention of studying physics and computer science. 5. After a year he left college and worked
as a forklift driver for a time, but he then began studying to become a teacher. 6. In 1976, Neeson joined the Lyric Players’
Theatre in Belfast where he performed for two years. 7. He got his first film experience in 1977,
playing Jesus Christ and Evangelist in the religious film Pilgrim’s Progress (1978). 8. In 1978, Neeson moved to Dublin’s Abbey
Theater where he performed the classics. It was here that he was spotted by director John
Boorman, and was cast in the film Excalibur (1981) as Sir Gawain, his first high-profile
film role. 9. After Excalibur, Neeson moved to London,
where he continued working on stage, in small budget films and in television. 10. Through the 1980s Neeson appeared in a
handful of films, and British TV series – including The Bounty (1984), A Woman of Substance (1984),
The Mission (1986), and Duet for One (1986) – but it was not until he moved to Hollywood
to pursue larger roles that he began to get noticed. 11. In 1986, he starred alongside Cher, and
Dennis Quaid in Suspect in a role that brought him critical acclaim. 12. In 1988, he starred alongside Clint Eastwood
in the fifth Dirty, Harry film “The Dead Pool” in the role of Peter Swan, a horror
film director. 13. Neeson claimed his first leading role
in the superhero thriller Darkman (1990). 14. In 1992 he made his Broadway debut in
a revival of Eugene O’Neill’s Anna Christie, costarring with Natasha Richardson. 15. Director Steven Spielberg offered Neeson
the role of Oskar Schindler in the film about the Holocaust, Schindler’s List, after seeing
him in Anna Christie on Broadway. The starring role in the Oscar-winning Holocaust film brought
Neeson Academy Award, BAFTA and Golden Globe nominations for Best Actor. 16. Soon after these accolades, Neeson became
an in-demand leading actor. He starred in the subsequent period pieces Rob Roy (1995)
and Michael Collins (1996), the latter earning him a win for Best Starring Role at the Venice
Film Festival and another Golden Globe nomination. 17. In 1998 he appeared as Jean Valjean in
a film adaptation of Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables. That year he also returned to the stage to
portray Oscar Wilde in The Judas Kiss in London and on Broadway. 18. In 1999, Neeson starred as Jedi Master
Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. Director George Lucas cast
Neeson in the role because he considered the actor to have great skills and presence, describing
him as a “master actor, who the other actors will look up to, who has got the qualities
of strength that the character demands.” 19. Neeson narrated the 2001 documentaries,
Journey, into Amazing Caves, a short film about two scientists who travel around the
world to search for material for potential cures, and The Endurance: Shackleton’s Legendary
Antarctic Adventure. 20. In 2002 he portrayed an immigrant gang
leader in Martin Scorsese’s historical epic Gangs of New York. 21. After appearing as a widower in the comedy
Love Actually (2003), he portrayed zoologist and student of sexual behavior Alfred Kinsey
in Kinsey (2004). 22. In 2005, Neeson played Godfrey of Ibelin
in Ridley Scott’s epic adventure Kingdom of Heaven. In the same year, he played the
mysterious Ducard in Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins, and provided the voice for
Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. 23. In 2006, he starred in the American Civil
War epic Seraphim Falls. 24. Neeson found a second surprise career,
as an action leading man with the release of Taken (2008), an unexpected box office
hit about a retired CIA agent attempting to rescue his daughter from being sold into prostitution;
its box-office success led to sequels in 2012 and 2014. 25. He appeared in Chloe (2009), in which
he played a husband whose wife hires a prostitute to test his fidelity, and the action-adventure
Clash of the Titans (2010), in which he played Zeus. 26. In 2010, Neeson also starred in The A-Team,
an action drama based on the 1980s television series, and appeared as an escaped convict
in the thriller The Next Three Days. 27. In 2011, he starred in Unknown, a German-British-American
co-production of a French book, it was filmed in Berlin in early 2010. 28. In 2012, Neeson starred as John Ottway
in Joe Carnahan’s The Grey. The film received mostly positive reviews and Neeson’s performance
as Ottway received critical acclaim. 29. In 2013, he was featured in the drama
Third Person as a novelist engaged in an extramarital affair. 30. In 2014, Neeson voiced characters in the
computer-animated heist-comedy The Nut Job, and The LEGO Movie. That same year he appeared
in A Million Ways to Die in the West and in the mystery action thriller Non-Stop. 31. In 2015, he starred in the action thriller
Run All Night. 32. In 2016, Neeson reunited with director
Martin Scorsese for the historical drama Silence. Neeson lost twenty pounds for his role. The
film’s premiere was held at the Vatican. 33. In 2017 he starred in Mark Felt: The Man
Who Brought Down the White House, about the FBI official known as “Deep Throat,” who
acted as an informant to reporters from The Washington Post during the Watergate scandal. 34. Neeson was appointed Officer of the Order
of the British Empire (OBE) by Queen Elizabeth II in her 2000 New Year Honours. 35. Liam Neeson has an estimated net worth
of $75 million. 36. Neeson met his future wife, actress Natasha
Richardson, while performing in a revival of the play Anna Christie on Broadway in 1993.
Together they had two sons, Michael (born 1995) and Daniel (born 1996). On 18 March
2009, Richardson died when she suffered a severe head injury in a skiing accident at
the Mont Tremblant Resort, northwest of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 37. Admitted in 2014 that he had to quit alcohol,
after having began to quietly drink heavily following Natasha Richardson’s death in
2009, and eventually drinking up to two to three bottles of wine per night. 38. A heavy smoker earlier in his career,
Neeson quit smoking in 2003, while working on Love Actually. 39. In August 2009, Neeson said that he had
been naturalised as a United States citizen. 40. In March 2011, he was appointed a Goodwill
Ambassador for UNICEF. Schindler’s List (1993) is ranked #3 on
the American Film Institute’s 100 Most Inspiring Movies of All Time. He recalled his most embarrassing moment in
acting as when, relatively early in his career, he auditioned for the role of Fezzik, the
giant in The Princess Bride (1987). Director Rob Reiner had a look of disgust on his face
when he realized that Neeson was “only” 193 cm (six-feet-four). André the Giant ended
up getting the role. If you know more facts about Lima neeson, please tell us in comment
below. Dont forget to subscribe, like and share.

Top 40 Amazing Facts About Celine Dion

April 6, 2020 | Articles, Blog | 2 Comments

Top 40 Amazing Facts About Celine Dion


Top 40 Amazing Facts About Celine Dion… Celine Dion is one of the greatest pop performers
of all time. The singer, originally from Charlemagne, Quebec, has lent her powerful and booming
voice to countless iconic tracks over the years—singing in both English and her native
French—with notable hits including “My Heart Will Go On” from the film Titanic,
“A New Day Has Come,” and the classic power ballad “It’s All Coming Back To
Me Now.” Through her incredible catalogue of songs, high-energy stage presence, and
inspirational rags-to-riches story, the Canadian songstress has amassed a huge following of
fans from all over the world. Let’s take a look at some of the most memorable highlights
from the life and career of the amazing and incomparable Celine Dion. 1. Celine Marie Claudette Dion was born on
March 30, 1968, in Charlemagne, Quebec, Canada. She was the youngest of her parents’—Adhémar-Charles
Dion and Thérèse Tanguay Dion—fourteen children. Dion’s family was impoverished,
but they were a close-knit group who were bonded together by their love of each other
and their shared passion for music. 2. From the very beginning, Dion was destined
for a career in music. Her parents named her after “Celine”—a popular song by French
recording artist Hugues Aufray that was released in 1966. While the Celine in Aufray’s song
is a tragic figure who feels she has not fulfilled her goals, the same cannot be said of multitalented
Celine Dion. 3. Dion first performed in front of a sizeable
audience during her brother Michel’s wedding on August 13, 1973. Five-year-old Dion performed
the simple French song “Du fils des aiguilles et du coton,” originally by Christine Charbonneau. 4. Dion continued her foray into music by
performing with her family at a local piano bar called Le Vieux Baril (The Old Barrel),
which was owned by her parents. It was here that Dion started practicing for her eventual
career as a performer: apparently, the young Dion had a habit of jumping on top of tables
and belting out songs for patrons—whether they wanted to be serenaded or not. 5. When she was 12, Dion worked with her mother
and brother Jacques on a demo tape. The three Dions wrote and composed what would become
Dion’s first song—“C’est n’était qu’un rêve,” which means “Nothing But
a Dream.” Her brother Michel sent the tape to music manager René Angélil, whose name
he found on the back of a Ginette Reno record. Angélil liked what he heard—a lot. He was
moved to tears by young Dion’s voice. Determined to make the amateur singer a household name,
Angélil truly went the distance for Dion, even mortgaging his own home to finance her
first album. Thankfully, La Voix du bon Dieu (The Good Lord’s Voice) was a success in
her native Quebec. 6. In the early days of her career, Dion relied
on her Quebecois audience, but to really make it, she had to set her sights further. The
world started to pay attention at the Yamaha World Popular Song Festival in Tokyo, Japan.
Dion’s powerful voice wowed the audience and judges as she brought home the prize for
Best Performer and a gold medal for Best Song with “Tellement j’ai d’amour pour toi”
(“I have so much love for you”). 7. At the Opening Ceremony of the 1996 Summer
Olympics in Atlanta, Dion performed “The Power of the Dream”—a song specifically
written and composed for the ceremony. Dion performed the song in front of 100,000 people
and a global television audience of nearly three and a half billion people. For the performance,
Dion was accompanied by one of the song’s co-writers and famed record producer David
Foster on piano, the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, and the Centennial Choir. 8. In the 80s, Celine Dion was quickly becoming
a major force in the world of French-language music. In 1983, she became the first Canadian
artist to receive a gold record in France for the song “D’amour ou d’amitié”
(“Of Love or Friendship”) Her stock continued to rise after winning the 1988 Eurovision
Song Contest. She represented Switzerland with the song “Ne partez pas sans moi”
(“Don’t Leave Without Me”). 9. After seeing Michael Jackson perform, Dion
told her manager that she wanted to achieve a similar level of international pop stardom.
Not one to shy away from a challenge, Dion committed to becoming an English-language
superstar. She underwent dental surgery to improve her image and enrolled in the Berlitz
School to learn English. In 1990, Dion released her first English album,
Unison. The record produced many popular singles but the most famous is certainly “Where
Does My Heart Beat Now.” This power ballad became the first of Dion’s many top ten
hits in the United States. 10. Dion performed on the title track for
the 1991 Disney film Beauty and the Beast. The song was a duet with R&B and soul singer
Peabo Bryson, who was brought on specially by Disney. The company worried that though
she was talented, Dion wasn’t a big enough name to support the song on her own. The 90s
were truly another time! Of course, the song was a huge hit, reaching
the top ten in both the US and the UK. Its songwriters received the Oscar and Golden
Globe for Best Original Song and Dion and Bryson received the Grammy for Best Pop Performance
by a Duo or Group With Vocals. 11. In the midst of her rising English-language
career in the early to mid-90s, Dion was still releasing albums in French. Most notable was
her 1995 French-language album D’eux. The album was a massive commercial success throughout
the Francophone world and became the highest-selling French-language album with over ten million
copies sold worldwide. It even got a wide release in the United States under the title
The French Album. 12. Her 1993 album The Colour of My Love produced
Dion’s biggest song to date—“The Power of Love.” It became Dion’s first number-one
single on the US, Canadian, and Australian charts and would go onto become a signature
track for the songstress and a favourite among her ardent fans. 13. Dion attained a new level of commercial
and critical success with the release of her 1996 album Falling Into You. The album was
lauded for its incorporation of a variety of musical influences from around the world—which
might help to explain the record’s profound global success. Falling Into You would go onto become one
of the best-selling albums in music history with an estimated 32 million copies sold worldwide.
It was certified 11x platinum in the United States and achieved diamond status in her
native Canada. The album would also be the recipient of two awards at the Grammys—Best
Pop Album and Album of the Year. 14. Celine Dion cemented herself in the annals
of pop music history with the release of her 1997 smash hit “My Heart Will Go On.”
The powerful love ballad was memorably featured in the mega-blockbuster film Titanic. It’s
hard to even imagine that movie without Dion’s signature track. The song was a huge success throughout the
world and became one of the best-selling singles of all time. It topped the charts in (deep
breath) Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the
United States. Like “Beauty and the Beast” before it,
“My Heart Will Go On” won Best Original Song at the Golden Globes and Oscars and Dion
herself won the Grammys for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance and the prestigious Record
of the Year. 15. According to music executive Tommy Mottola,
Dion recorded “My Heart Will Go On” in just one take. What was initially supposed
to be the demo track turned out to be the only and final recording that was eventually
released. Talk about nailing it on the first try. 16. Dion and Angélil’s first child, son
René-Charles, was born on January 25, 2001. A year earlier, Dion underwent two surgeries
at a New York fertility clinic to help increase her chances of conceiving a baby. The couple
also decided to use in-vitro fertilization treatments after previous unsuccessful attempts
at conceiving. 17. At the 9/11 benefit concert America: A
Tribute to Heroes, Dion sang “God Bless America.” Her rendition earned rave reviews,
such that she performed the song once again in front an enormous audience at Super Bowl
XXXVII in San Diego, California. 18. In 1998, Dion received two distinguished
Canadian civilian honors. She was named an Officer of the Order of Canada and Officer
of the National Order of Quebec. In 2013, Dion was named to the highest rank of the
Order of Canada as a Companion of the Order of Canada. 19. In 2002, Dion announced that she would
start a residency in Las Vegas’ Caesar’s Palace. A special 4000-seat auditorium, known
as The Colosseum, was specifically built to house her show entitled A New Day… The show
was originally supposed to run for three years but ended up running for five and grossing
over $385 million. Dion’s success helped establish a new standard
of Vegas performance show that incorporated elements of performance art and inspired similar
residencies by artists like Elton John, Cher, Shania Twain, and Britney Spears. 20. On August 22, 2008, Dion performed in
front of 490,000 people for a free concert held on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City,
Quebec. The concert, which featured a mostly French-language setlist, was a celebration
of the city’s 400th anniversary. The concert was filmed and later released as a DVD in
Quebec and France. 21. As revealed in her “Carpool Karaoke”
segment, Dion loves shoes. She estimates that between her homes in Florida and Nevada she
has anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 pairs of shoes. Dion mentioned that she has a computerized
system in her Florida home that can organize and pull out shoes by color and style. Dion
is truly living the dream! 22. Dion returned for a second residency stint
at The Colosseum at Caesar’s Palace on the Vegas Strip in 2011. Her new show entitled
Celine was similarly well-received and a major commercial success. Despite many shows being
canceled due to her husband’s illness and later his and Dion’s brother’s deaths
(alongside and medical issues experienced by Dion herself), the show ran for 427 shows
and grossed nearly $300 million. It closed on June 8, 2019, after an illustrious
eight-year run in which it became the most profitable Vegas show since Elvis Presley. 23. Dion has listed legendary performers such
as Aretha Franklin, Anne Murray, Barbra Streisand, and Carole King as major influences on her
career. In turn, many artists have cited Dion as an inspiration on their own careers. For
Ariana Grande, Britney Spears, Taylor Swift, Josh Groban, Katy Perry, Adele, Rihanna, Jennifer
Hudson, and Kelly Clarkson, Dion can’t be beat! 24. Dion was a founding owner of the Canadian
restaurant chain Nickels. The restaurants were themed as 1950s style diners. She divested
her interest from the restaurant group in 1997. 25. In 2010, Dion joyfully announced that
she and Angélil were expecting twins. After Dion’s previous trouble conceiving, she
was thrilled to give birth to healthy fraternal twins on October 23, 2010, named Eddy and
Nelson. They were named after French songwriter Eddy Marnay and former South African President
Nelson Mandela, respectively. 26. Starting in September 2019, Dion will
hit the road once again for a major concert tour that will see her perform 66 shows across
Canada and the United States. 27. In May 2019, Dion appeared on the popular “Carpool Karaoke”
segment on The Late Late Show with James Corden. Dion and Corden drove through Las Vegas belting
out many of Dion’s most popular songs and an incredibly dramatic rendition of the kid’s
song/earworm “Baby Shark.” The segment ended with Dion and Corden singing “My Heart
Will Go On” while reenacting that scene from Titanic in the Bellagio fountains. 28. Throughout her long and illustrious career,
Dion has been the recipient of numerous awards. She has won 12 World Music Awards, five Grammys,
seven Billboard Music Awards, 20 Juno Awards, which honors excellence in Canadian music,
and 45 Félix Awards, which honors excellence in the Quebec music industry. 29. In 2004, Dion was immortalized with a
star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Previously in 1999, she received a star on Canada’s
Walk of Fame. 30. In addition to her massive hits in both
English and French, Dion has also performed songs in Spanish, German, Italian, Latin,
Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. 31. Dion’s mother Thérèse Tanguay Dion
became a celebrity in her own right by launching a line of food products and hosting a popular
cooking show in Quebec. She is best known by the nickname Maman Dion. 32. No trip to Montreal is complete without
a smoked meat sandwich from iconic Jewish delicatessen Schwartz’s. In 2012, the deli,
which has been in business since 1928, came under a new ownership group that included
Dion and her husband. Montreal smoked meat and Celine Dion—two of Quebec’s greatest
products together at last! 33. In September 1984, Dion performed for
Pope John Paul II during his visit to Montreal. She performed the song “Une Colombe” in
an event that drew about 60,000 people. 34. Dion was the subject of a 2008 television
biopic produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The movie entitled Celine featured
singer and actor Christine Ghawi in the titular role and Enrico Colantoni as Angélil. 35. Dion made her American television debut
on September 21, 1990, on an episode of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. She performed
“Where Does My Heart Beat Now” on an episode with guest host Jay Leno. Apparently, that
wasn’t enough for Carson who had to hear Dion sing the song live himself. She returned
to the show only a few months later, this time impressing Carson with another stirring
performance. 36. In 2018, it was announced that Celine
Dion was experiencing hearing troubles brought on by a condition called Patulous Eustachian
Tube (PET). She underwent a minor procedure to correct the problem after her prescribed
ear-drop medication ceased working. 37. Music seems to run in the family. In recent
years, Dion’s teenage son René-Charles has embarked on a musical career of his own.
Posting raps and remixes under the name Big Tip, René-Charles’ tracks have hit number
one and number two on the Soundcloud Canadian charts. As of August 2019, he hasn’t uploaded
for about a year. Maybe one day he’ll release a song with his mom. 38. On August 21, 2008, Dion became a doctor…
kind of. The chanteuse received an honorary doctorate in Music from the Université Laval
in Quebec City—the oldest institution for higher learning in Canada and the first French-language
institution for higher education in North America. The ceremony was held the day before
her big Plains of Abraham concert. 39. Recording her first album and performing
many gigs put a serious strain on Dion’s vocal cords. After consulting with a specialist
doctor, she was presented with an ultimatum: either undergo surgery on her vocal cords
or abstain from performing for three consecutive weeks. Dion opted for the non-surgical option. 40. In the liner notes for her 1993 album
The Colour of My Love, Dion publicly expressed her love for her longtime manager René Angélil
for the first time. They had started their romantic relationship in 1987 and were engaged
in 1991. The pair tied the knot in a lavish ceremony on December 17, 1994, at Montreal’s
Notre-Dame Basilica. The ceremony was even broadcast on Canadian television. The relationship turned a few heads—and
it’s easy to see why. Angélil was 26 years older than Dion and had first met her when
she was 12. Though they waited to begin dating, Dion was still very young when they started
their relationship. At just 19, Dion was seeing a man more than double her age. On January 14, 2016, Dion’s longtime mentor,
manager, and husband René Angélil died from complications related to throat cancer. He
was 73. Just two days later, Dion’s brother Daniel, aged 53, also lost his battle with
cancer. Dion canceled her Vegas show for the rest of January and would resume her residency
the following month. Celine Dion has supported a variety of charitable
foundations. One cause very close to her heart is her work with the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation. In 1993, Dion’s niece Karine died in her arms from the disease. Dion hosted
a fundraiser for the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that raised more than $1 million, donated
$1 million to Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, and she donated $100,000 to a children’s
foundation following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Don’t forget to subscribe to our channel to
get more interesting videos.

What Social Distancing Actually Is & What it Means for Mental Health


{♫Intro♫} Social distancing can be very good —from
a public health perspective. It’s a time-honored, low-tech tool for slowing
the spread of contagious pathogens. But it can also take a toll psychologically. Luckily, there are ways to mitigate these
harms. So you can protect yourself and your community
from disease while also protecting your mental health. Social distancing refers to a variety of measures
which actually aim to increase the physical distance between people. In fact, some experts have suggested changing
the term to “physical distancing” instead of social distancing. And the logic is simple: we’re dealing with
an infectious disease that spreads through contact with a sick person or something they’ve
left behind. So, if everyone limits their contact with
people and public places, they can limit the spread of the disease in their community. And that, hopefully, will slow or even stop
the outbreak. There are two basic strategies for this. The first is to keep people who come face-to-face
with one another farther apart. This usually means avoiding physical contact,
like hugging and shaking hands. And if sneezes and coughs can launch virus
particles up to two meters, then it may help to stay at least two meters away from other
people when you’re in public. The second is to limit the size of gatherings. This decreases the likelihood that a person
who’s infected will be there. This might mean closing schools and canceling
events, or even shutting down businesses where people tend to gather, like bars and movie
theaters. Or, in the extreme, it may mean following
Stay at Home orders, which literally mean staying home as much as you can, save the
very occasional trip to the grocery store or if you need to seek medical attention. Social distancing comes in handy when you
don’t know who in the community might be infected. Like, if people are contagious before they
show symptoms, or if people with very mild symptoms can spread an infection. [social distancing] It’s distinct from two
other measures you’ve probably been hearing about: quarantine and isolation, though we
are using these things all interchangeably a lot right now. But technically, Quarantine is when you separate
people who have been exposed to a contagious pathogen away from people who haven’t, and
monitor for signs of illness. And isolation is when you separate people
who have a contagious disease from people who do not. You may have also heard of cities, counties,
or other large areas stopping people from entering or leaving their borders. This is yet another method people have used
to control the spread of infectious disease, called a cordon sanitaire. In all cases, the ultimate goal is to reduce
the total number of people infected at any given moment, or quote “flatten the curve”
of the epidemic. That helps ensure that healthcare facilities
have the bandwidth to give quality care to everyone who needs it. But, these measures also have very real costs—including
psychological ones. There are lots of factors at play, but when
it comes to mental health effects, the main culprits are isolation and uncertainty. Now I know we used “isolation” earlier
when talking about public health. But isolation as a public health measure is
different than feelings of isolation in psychology. Those are the negative emotions associated
with having fewer interactions with other people. We really feel the loss of our social lives
because, well, we’re a social species. There’s lots of research that suggests people
feel happier when they interact with others. And that’s because, for hundreds of thousands
of years, an individual’s survival has depended on the nature of their interactions with other
humans. So our brains have evolved to find positive
social interactions rewarding on the neuronal level. Even the everyday interactions we have with
strangers contribute a surprising amount to our mental wellbeing. On top of that, the quickly-changing landscaping
of a public health crisis breeds a lot of uncertainty. We have a whole episode on why people tend
to have a hard time with uncertainty in general, if you want to learn more. But the short version: a major theme that
underlies many of our greatest worries is fear of the unknown. And outbreaks are kind of unpredictable by
nature. Emerging pandemics may create even more uncertainty
than other types of dangerous events because they involve multiple types of risk. On the one hand, your individual risk of personal
harm may be low—depending on your exposure, age, and underlying health conditions. But at the same time, the risk to your community
or country might be huge—like, the high potential that the disease will overwhelm
healthcare systems and cripple economies. It can be hard for the brain to reconcile
these seemingly conflicting points of view. And that contributes to uncertainty. And speaking of uncertainty… It’s also difficult to predict exactly how
a pandemic will affect mental health. Many of the psychological effects of social
distancing and other measures are tough to quantify—like the stresses that come with
canceled events and lost income. Plus, contributing factors are interrelated,
so it’s hard to disentangle one part from everything else that’s going on. But researchers have gathered a lot of information
in recent years—after the SARS, H1N1, and Ebola outbreaks, for example. All those studies suggest that public safety
measures often lead to increased rates of depression and anxiety in the community. Those increases are even higher for people
with high exposure, like healthcare workers. And people with certain mental health conditions
may be more vulnerable. Like, if you already have anxiety, depression,
or substance use disorder, then social distancing may make it worse. Or if you have obsessive compulsive disorder,
it may be harder to manage amid messages about increased handwashing. And the emotional costs tend to increase as
measures get stricter. Regardless of your specific circumstances,
though, there are things that you can do to protect your mental health. All the uncertainty jacks up your stress level—so
things that help you relax are great. Like, if looking at the news makes you feel
anxious, maybe spend less time with it, and tune in to just a few reliable sources. Even if what you’re reading is accurate, consuming
outbreak-related media may decrease your wellbeing and perhaps even make you feel sick when you
aren’t. Also, you can try to stay active. Exercise is great for relieving symptoms of
stress, anxiety, and depression. Or, you could consider giving mindfulness
practice a try. That’s the practice of tuning in to the
present moment and accepting your thoughts and feelings without judging them — often
with the help of breathing exercises or meditation. It can calm painful emotions and relieve stress,
and it benefits the body and brain in other ways, too. Though, different people can react to it in
different ways, so you might want to talk to your doctor first. Above all, try making an effort to reach out. Even if it feels like it, you’re really not
alone. We live in a wonderful time when we can use
technology, like video calls, to connect. So you can be social with friends and family
electronically! And if you can, go outside. From a safe distance, you can talk to your
neighbors and even strangers on the street. You can also reach out to people in need,
and have some compassion for people whose jobs take them into crowded places — the
healthcare workers, grocery store employees, and airline workers who take care of us every
day. Helping others pays dividends in both directions:
the giver and the recipient both feel good. It’s part of our biological programming. And all of us should also support the people
who get sick and those who lose their wages or jobs because of everything going on. It’s not their fault. This kind of leaning on one another in spite
of social distancing may actually make us feel closer and more supported by our friends
and loved ones during and after an outbreak. And remember: You have some level of control
here. Your actions, from working from home to washing
your hands, do matter. You are protecxting people. None of this will completely prevent the pandemic
from having an emotional toll; nothing can. But they might help reduce some of the negative
effects of social distancing. We’re all in this together. So be kind to one another—and, especially,
to yourself. Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow
Psych, and to our patrons on Patreon, who make every episode of SciShow possible. You can learn more about this amazing community
of science-loving people at Patreon.com/SciShow. And if you’re looking for more information
about the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have some episodes on our main channel that you might
find helpful—they’re linked in the description below. {♫Outro♫}

Deutsche Bank’s Future & the Future of Big Banks Everywhere (w/ David Enrich)


ED HARRISON: Where does Deutsche Bank go now? What does it say about what needs to happen
to the financial system as a whole as it stands right now? DAVID ENRICH: Well, now in 2020, the bank
and its executives, there’s a new management team in place, and it is scrambling to save
itself really. Last year, they seriously considered merging
with Commerce Bank, which at that point, the number two German lender and that was a merger
that was being brokered by the German government because they’re trying to save these two very
sick banks. Those talks end up falling apart because people
realized that merging two big sick banks together were just going to create one very big stick
bank, not one big healthy bank, which is– ED HARRISON: That’s what the Japanese did
after their crisis, and that didn’t work out so well. DAVID ENRICH: No. That’s not a recipe for success, the recipe
for success is ripping off the band aid and taking your painful medicine and getting it
done with and hoping that you’re doing it at a time where you have the breathing room,
I’m mixing metaphors here, but you have the breathing room to be able to do that effectively. Deutsche Bank did have that opportunity, didn’t
take advantage. Now, it is racing to shed assets, shed employees,
shed business lines, it’s trying to retreat to its German roots and be a European lender
to European companies. That means shutting down a lot of its Wall
Street businesses and a lot of the businesses in the City of London. The bigger problem, though, there’s a few
problems that Deutsche Bank faces that I’m not sure are surmountable, to be honest with
you. One of them is that they just have these still
mountains of very risky derivatives and other assets that they do not know what to do with,
it’s not selling them means they’ll have to recognize these huge losses that could essentially
bankrupt the bank. ED HARRISON: Is this a Bankers Trust thing,
a legacy banking trust, or is that whole derivatives culture came from that acquisition? DAVID ENRICH: Yeah. I was going to say it’s certainly a cultural
legacy. I’m not sure it’s the financial legacy. I think that very much of Deutsche Bank’s
own doing, but it’s certainly a cultural legacy of having bought this derivatives crazed bank
at the end of the 1990s, which was a $10 billion deal that very quickly became a $10 billion
albatross for the bank. They’ve got this huge problem, this legacy
problem of all of this garbage on their balance sheet that not only is it hard to get rid
of, but if they do succeed and getting rid of it, creates a big financial hole for them. That’s problem one. Problem two, is that it’s very questionable
whether they have a viable business model going forward. They’re a German business. The whole reason they got into Wall Street
in the first place is that the German business wasn’t making any money. It’s not profitable, and partly Germany is
notoriously overbank. There’s thousands of banks in Germany, serving
a very frugal savings friendly customer base of both individuals and institutions. It’s not a great place to be doing business. There are all sorts of economic questions
about Germany and Europe as well, obviously. The business model’s another problem. The third problem, which in some ways is maybe
the greatest problem, I think, is a cultural one, which is that this is a bank with 10s
of thousands of employees all over the world. Many of those employees have been very well
trained over the years to do one thing and one thing only, which is maximize short term
profit. They are not trained to think about this from
the flipping the camera angle and looking at this from a self-preservation standpoint,
they’re looking at this and are compensated for making money quickly. If those incentives switch radically, why
work at Deutsche Bank? Last year, as I’ve reported on this book,
I went down to Jacksonville, Florida, where Deutsche Bank has its big compliance and anti-money
laundering operations. I spent a few days down there talking to a
lot of either current employees or recently departed employees, and just asking them,
how it was doing their job? Do they feel good about it? What are their problems? It was interesting. I talked to probably 20 people, I’m guessing,
and I heard one variation of the same thing from literally every person I spoke to, which
is that people felt that they were being set up to fail by their managers and by executives
of the food chain. The reason was that they were being pushed
to just churn through transactions. They were not being encouraged or incentivized
to take their time and dig deep and err on the side of caution. They were being incentivized to do the exact
opposite of that, to clear as many transactions as they could, as quickly as they could. The employees viewed that as just setting
them up not only to fail but setting the institution up to fall into more money laundering problems,
or bribery problems or tax fraud problems and whatnot. Those are the little scandals that bubble
up that can really have enormous problems for the bank in the long term, especially
in the US where it’s on very, very thin ice with American regulators. There’s a foreign bank that operates in the
US at the pleasure of American authorities, and there’s no guarantee that American authorities
will continue to cut the bank a break at this point. The people in Frankfurt who are running the
bank right now, they are well intentioned, and they’re working hard and I think they
get it, but it’s not easy to, you can’t just say okay, we are going to have a different
better culture now. We’re rebooting, we’re returning to our roots
as a proud national iconic German bank. Let’s start over. It doesn’t work that way. You need to get people, mid-level managers
and low-level employees all the way up to the sales and trading people on Wall Street
in the City of London, you need to get them all to change the way they’re thinking about
their jobs. ED HARRISON: It’s taken 30 years for them
to get to that position, so it’s going to take a long time to undo that. DAVID ENRICH: I don’t know that they have
the time or the capacity to succeed in doing that. Maybe they do, but it’s definitely, it’s far
from a sure thing. This isn’t like one of those just like slow
turnaround efforts that we know is going to get there because they’re providing something
of value and it’s good for the world. This is a company operating in a very– a
highly commoditized business far from its home markets in a really overstretched way
that has had disastrous results. You could make an argument there’s not a clear
reason for them to exist. ED HARRISON: I like this last line actually. If you were an analyst, I guess you would
put a sell on Deutsche. DAVID ENRICH: Well, the thing is their stock
is down. It’s remarkable. I haven’t looked in the past couple days,
but it’s down about 95% from its peak. There’s not that much further down for it
to go, honestly. This is not a company that is the stock has
been like riding high. It reflects these deep existential investor
doubts about its viability.

New York, New York: The future of American cities PART 2 (1996) | THINK TANK


Ben Wattenberg: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg. Last week on “Think Tank,” we discussed
New York City, the good news and the not-so-good news. This week on the second of two programs, we’ll
continue that discussion and widen our focus to include other American cities. Joining us in Cooper Union’s Great Hall
to sort through the conflict and the consensus are Fred Siegel, history professor at the
Cooper Union and author of the forthcoming “Fall from Grace: New York, Washington,
Los Angeles, and the Failure of Urban Liberalism”; Ester Fuchs, director of the Barnard-Columbia
Center for Urban Policy and author of “Mayors and Money: Fiscal Policy in New York and Chicago”;
Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and adjunct
professor at Mercy College; and Jim Sleeper, member of the editorial board of the journal
Dissent and author of “The Closest of Strangers: Liberalism and the Politics of Race in New
York.” The topic before this house: New York, New
York, and the future of American cities, the second of two programs. This week on “Think Tank.” Last week on “Think Tank,” our panelists
discussed the question: Is there a new New York? This week we ask them to look at the national
situation. Item: city size. Except for the immigrant gateways of New York
and Los Angeles, the 10 largest cities in America have lost more than 20 percent of
their population since 1950. Some say this has led to so-called urban donuts,
crime-ridden cities surrounded by thriving suburbs. But in the new decentralized economy, other
observers say cities actually need to get smaller to get healthier. Item: crime. Over 50 percent of city residents say they
do not feel safe walking alone at night. But the largest eight cities in America have
seen their violent crime rates drop by an average of nearly 10 percent since 1994. Item: welfare. New York’s 1.2 million welfare recipients
make up about 14 percent of the population, not an atypical rate for big American cities. But the number of Americans on welfare has
declined somewhat, and proposed new federal legislation could accelerate that trend. So the questions remain: Are cities getting
better or worse? And what should we do about the state of our
cities? Is what is happening in New York, which seems
to me as I listen to you all a picture of mixed progress, is this something that is
New York generated? They’re ahead of the curve giving an example
to other cities. Or has it been happening in other cities before
New York? Is New York going to school in the other cities? Or is it just happening? Let’s start with Fred on this one. Fred Siegel: Ben, you know, when La Guardia
was mayor and he was president of the United States Conference of Mayors, you could talk
about urban policy and the state of the cities. Cities today are dramatically divided. Southwestern and West Coast cities are doing
extremely well. They have very little in common, Houston and
Seattle and San Diego are doing very, very well. They have very little in common with the older,
rusting hulks of Eastern cities, like Baltimore and Philadelphia. The headline in The Philadelphia Inquirer
recently read — and this is a city headed by a reform mayor, Ed Rendell — recently
read, “Optimism for Next Year, Job Loss Rate Slows.” [Laughter.] So I don’t think we can any longer talk
about national urban policy. Part of the reason it’s so hard to formulate
urban policy in Washington now is there’s no policy that fits all the cities. San Jose, which is the center of Silicon Valley,
is booming. It does not have problems in any way remotely
similar to, say, Baltimore or Philadelphia. Ester Fuchs: I would amend what Fred is saying
slightly here. I think that in the 1970s particularly, there
was this dramatic chasm between a New York City and a Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and
Baltimore, the Rust Belt cities, and the Southwest and what were called the economic growth cities. And that was really sort of exaggerated in
the New York City fiscal crisis. You guys have nothing to do with the rest
of us here. What you did you created yourself. Well, what happened in the end of the ’70s
and early ’80s is, basically, the Southwest discovered that its economic boom was not
forever, too. And you know, most of the country thought
that in fact New York was alone and we could dismiss it. Well, it turns out that New York wasn’t
alone, that New York was ahead of the curve on its problems, and in a sense — I don’t
say it was ahead of the curve on the solutions, but it was certainly ahead of the curve on
revealing the extent to which urban America is plagued by, I think, a kind of never-ending
problem of balancing budgets. And the biggest contributor to this for cities
nationally is essentially having concentration of poverty in central cities right now. Jim Sleeper: America has always had a love-hate
relation with cities. You know, you move to the suburb; you get
a lawn with a split-rail fence and a wagon wheel. It’s your ponderosa. If you want places where there’s a lot of
density, a lot of excitement, a lot of unpredictable contact, all the wonderful things that cities
do, you’re going to have to invest in it. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean massive
public-sector subsidies, but — Ben Wattenberg: And you know, there is a — out
in the real world there, outside of Cooper Union and outside of the beltway, there is
a four-letter word that encompasses all that, which is m-a-l-l. [Laughter.] I mean, you have malls in America that are
the size of medium-sized cities. Jim Sleeper: That’s right. Ben Wattenberg: What on earth is wrong with
having them outside of the beltway instead of inside of the beltway? Jim Sleeper: Well, I think we’ll find that
out from the generation of young people that are growing up wholly in those malls without
any previous urban experiences. I think we’re getting — Ben Wattenberg: Excuse me, that is an urban
experience. Jim Sleeper: Well, it’s not what I would
call an urban experience. Ben Wattenberg: I want to ask another question. President Clinton has said that out-of-wedlock
birth is our number-one problem. Conservatives have been saying that for about
a thousand years. The case has been made that the current mode
of welfare policies has stimulated out-of-wedlock birth. Would tough-minded welfare reform — by which
I mean making it harder to get on welfare and getting less money, to make it less attractive,
so that when a young girl gets pregnant, she decides she’d better get married because
she’s not going to make it the other way — is this a — because we’re all, down
in Washington, talking about welfare reform — should this be a principal focus of urban
reform and revitalization? Michael Meyers: Well, President Clinton has
about 10 number-one priorities. Welfare reform is just one of them. Ben Wattenberg: Would that be your number-one
priority? Michael Meyers: No, not really, because I
think it’s one of those canards, one of those red herrings people keep chasing. Because if you talk — and everybody’s
in favor of welfare reform because nobody wants people on welfare who don’t deserve
it and don’t need it. Ben Wattenberg: Well, why — we had numbers
before that showed a six- to sevenfold increase of welfare. Michael Meyers: Hey, society has changed,
Ben. Where you been? Ben Wattenberg: Well, yeah. But — Michael Meyers: And the nature of poverty
has increased. And this is where we agree. Ester Fuchs: Deindustrialization. Michael Meyers: But this is where we agree. I mean, to the extent that people are having
children and making themselves more poor because they’re having children, I think that’s
right. You need to tell people about the use of birth
control, and until recently, we haven’t even used television to do that. We used to have this Puritan notion about
we can’t talk about condoms on TV. I’m in favor of the kind of welfare reform
that says — and I think your point is that people — it is, this government is making
it more difficult to be on welfare, believe me, and to stay on welfare, but the point
is that it seems to me that the kind of welfare reform you need is — the most important
kind is childcare, giving people childcare so they can get out into the workforce, and
having jobs out there for them to take when they’re available for the workforce. Jim Sleeper: That’s right. If we’re willing to spend $50 billion on
a job program — if you’re asking whether welfare is part of that problem of out-of-wedlock
births, yes. But if you’re asking whether a dramatic
cutback in welfare would reverse that problem, I think the answer is no. Ben Wattenberg: Ester Fuchs, you have been
shaking your head, no, no, welfare doesn’t lead to illegitimacy, etc., etc. It’s not a big problem, it is a big problem? Ester Fuchs: That’s an important point here,
and if we want to talk about truly getting people into self-sufficiency and off welfare,
which I think, as Michael pointed out, there is a general consensus out there regardless
of ideology that, you know, able-bodied people should be working. There should be jobs for people. One needs to be realistic about the situation. First of all, in most large cities, the preponderance
of people on welfare are children, and the other — Ben Wattenberg: Oh, wait a minute, please. But the payments — Ester Fuchs: But you need to know that there
are children — Ben Wattenberg: No, but every child by definition
has a mother. Ester Fuchs: Right. Ben Wattenberg: And the payments are going
to mothers. Ester Fuchs: The payments are going to mothers
— Ben Wattenberg: To take care of children. Ester Fuchs: — in support of children, so
but when you construct a reform, which I think we need to do, one needs to be reality based,
that somebody has to take care of these children who exist and who are out there. There are two stages in correcting the problem. It’s one, what you want to do in the future,
but one, what you want to do with the current population of welfare recipients. Ben Wattenberg: Stipulated. Ester Fuchs: So you have to do deal with the
children as well as the mothers. And that, I think, is something that people
are not realistically paying attention to. So you need to have really significant investment
in childcare if you really want to put moms to work. Fred Siegel: I must say, this whole thing
puzzles me. The one thing you have in the inner city an
abundance of is people who need work, mothers who are out of work, mothers who are taking
care of their own children. Why daycare is a problem here is beyond me. It seems like the easiest thing in the world
to allow mothers who are already taking care of their own children to take care of other
children. Michael Meyers: The other problem, the other
priority that Clinton talks about, number-one priority, and that is the family breakdown. So even as you, Fred, are looking for these
grandmothers and these mothers, ultimately — Ester Fuchs: They’re not there. Michael Meyers: — they’re not there, according
to President Clinton’s priorities. Ben Wattenberg: All right now, hold on. Hold it. I want to move on just for a moment because
we are running out of time. There has been a lot of talk in the urbanology
community, in the municipal budget community, that the road out deals with privatization
and reinventing government. You have all studied many cities. Is that another buzzword, or is something
happening out there? Jim Sleeper: I’d say right up front there
are a couple obvious problems. Privatization in New York City, the earliest
ventures we had produced a lot of corruption and a lot of waste. Some of our — Ben Wattenberg: What about outside of New
York? Jim Sleeper: — biggest municipal scandals. No, all I’m saying is that privatization
in itself — I happen to agree that a lot of things should be privatized because municipal
unions have strangled them, but how it’s done is very important. Ben Wattenberg: Michael, you have traveled
around the country. Do you get a sense that this is something
big and for real and good, or is it — Michael Meyers: I get a sense right away that
particularly poor people don’t like public type things. They don’t like having to go into a public
hospital and sitting in an emergency room and waiting for hours and not getting decent
care and being charged $125 for a visit from an anonymous doctor. No. If privatization could be something other
than a buzzword, if privatization could really improve the quality of life for an enormous
number of people, hey, I’m for it. And I’m also against big government. I think most people are against big government
that’s inefficient and irresponsible and costly. Ben Wattenberg: Okay, but can it? I’m asking you as an observer and a scholar
and a student. Is there evidence that it is doing it? Michael Meyers: I think it can. I think privatization can work, particularly
in terms of schools. But it works for fewer people than the public
sector because the public sector virtually appeals to and responds to the needs of the
masses, just as public schools. Fred Siegel: One of the best examples of privatization
working is a company called America Works. It has an extraordinary record of taking people
on welfare and placing them in paying jobs with health insurance. Michael Meyers: With governmental subsidies,
Fred. Fred Siegel: I’m not arguing — I’m not
saying government doesn’t have to be involved. But what’s interesting is they do what private
welfare departments can’t do. They make their living by placing people. If the Department of Welfare in New York City
doesn’t place people, which it doesn’t, there’s no consequence. People continue to receive their salaries. Ben Wattenberg: You mean their payments. Fred Siegel: Their payments. If America Works doesn’t place people in
long-term jobs, those people don’t stay in the jobs. They don’t make a profit. This is an example where privatization has
worked brilliantly. But precisely because it’s worked brilliantly,
it’s generated tremendous public-sector opposition from public-sector unions. Michael Meyers: But the America Works people
tell me — they tell me that their program works because the mothers from welfare somehow
get some sort of governmental subsidy, such as childcare and extension of Medicaid benefits. Those are forms of welfare. Ben Wattenberg: Excuse my ignorance. Is America Works national? Fred Siegel: Yes. Yes. Ester Fuchs: Well, it’s in seven cities
now. But I think what is — Ben Wattenberg: What cities beside New York? Ester Fuchs: It’s in Chicago and New York. Fred Siegel: Indianapolis. Ester Fuchs: Indianapolis and in Chicago as
well. Ben Wattenberg: And do you think it’s working? Ester Fuchs: It’s going into Baltimore in
the empowerment zone. I think it’s a wonderful program also, but
I agree with Michael that it’s a partnership with government. Michael Meyers: Mixture. Ester Fuchs: And I think that this either/or
syndrome that we’re in is not really the way to go. I mean, one thing that most people probably
don’t realize is that cities have been privatizing for a very long time. Social services in this country are by and
large done by contracted out, not-for-profit or for-profit, private, quotes, organizations. You know, you look at the so-called charities,
Catholic charities, Jewish charities, Protestant charities. All of their social services functions are
essentially contracts from government, okay? So, you know, the irony of the privatization
argument is — you know, it goes back to Jim’s point, I think — is that you have
to be forever vigilant. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. And what we need to do is look at the areas
in which it’s most constructive and can work well. Ben Wattenberg: Sen. Coats of Indiana and
Chairman Kasich of Ohio have introduced a 17-bill package, the jewel of which is a$1,000-per-couple
tax credit — not deduction — tax credit for charitable giving, which is, in effect,
a federal government subsidy to private charitable agencies, that you would — I mean, I heard
Coats explain it. He said, if you had a choice between giving
your money — giving a thousand dollars to the Department of Human Services in Chicago,
or whatever, or picking your own charity to give it to, who would you give it to? And wouldn’t it be more efficient? Does that make sense? Ester Fuchs: No. I mean, I really think that that’s missing
the point of the problem. I mean, first of all, if you are a public-sector
agency providing social services and you have a caseload, which has been the case in New
York and other cities — counties, of 50 cases per caseworker, and you have no capacity
to provide jobs, well, that’s a poorly run agency, which you’re not going to get, you
know, much service from. Basically, a lot of agencies have been constructed
that way, partly because of budget cuts, partly because of inefficiencies. But in order to improve that, you could improve
that either through the public sector providing a better service with maybe 15 cases or you
could privatize. Ben Wattenberg: But you just said that the
public sector provides inefficient services. You just said it. Ester Fuchs: But why? Partly because they’re completely underfunded. You can’t be a caseworker with 50 jobs — 50
cases. Ben Wattenberg: But are you making the case
that before the budget cuts, these agencies were working efficiently? Ester Fuchs: No, no, no. I mean, I’ll go back to my original point,
which is to say you need to look at it service by service to see what works and what doesn’t
work. But what I’m saying is for sure your public-sector
agency is not going to work if you have 50 cases per case worker. It’s completely impossible. Jim Sleeper: But, you know, the Coats package
raises an important principle, which is that the choice shouldn’t always have to be just
between having a large public-sector bureaucracy or having the government doing the contracting
out, which it often does also very poorly. He’s pointing to a third alternative, which
in certain ways and certain areas might be better, that certain kinds of charitable provision
would make sense if there was really money going into them from people who are not bound
by the same strictures that government bureaucrats are bound by. Ben Wattenberg: Could that help cities across
America, Fred? Fred Siegel: I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical for the following reasons. The reason private-sector organizations work
is because they can set their own standards. If they begin to accept government money,
they’ll lose the ability to set their own standards. Jim Sleeper: That’s my point. Ben Wattenberg: All right, but wait a minute. His point is that it’s not government money. It is you are writing a check to the YMCA,
and you then deduct 100 percent of that on your taxes, never going through the government. That’s the way he would — Fred Siegel: But Ben, the problem with that
is someone in Congress will say, “See, this is a tax expenditure.” And it will become an issue. Jim Sleeper: But that’s the battle. Fred Siegel: The question of money is crucial. The city of Washington, DC, has more money
to spend per capita, per case of any type — take any type of social ailment — than
any other city in America. The city is in total collapse. There’s no toilet paper in the city hall. It can’t plow its roads in the middle of
the winter. The problem with public-sector bureaucracies
is they’re incapable of setting standards and holding people to them. Once you bring government in, directly or
indirectly, it’ll be seen as a public issue. Jim Sleeper: Isn’t that the point of the
Coats bill, is to take government out? Fred Siegel: Yeah, but my argument is that
what the Coats bill will do, by providing tax credit the way it does, indirectly will
bring government in to ruin those existing problem institutions. Ben Wattenberg: Let’s finish up this fascinating
discussion on sort of a broader topic. Thirty or so years ago, I know, when I started
writing books about the census, it was sort of a rule of thumb that America was divided
into thirds. It was a third city, a third suburb, and a
third rural. In the course of the last 30 years, the suburban
sector has grown so rapidly, it is now 51, 52 percent. I mean, for the first time in American history,
in the last few years, you can make a statement, America is a suburban nation, and you can
prove it. I mean — or a majority suburban. You could never say it was a majority urban
or a majority rural or a majority suburban. And there are good reasons for that. People have problems with cities. They want the quarter acre. Fred Siegel: Space. Ben Wattenberg: They want space. They want places for their kids, whatever. Whatever. Ester Fuchs: They don’t want to deal with
the poverty population concentrated in central cities. Jim Sleeper: They don’t want to deal with
parks that aren’t kept clean and orderly. Ben Wattenberg: Absolutely. Now, long range, are we going to deal with
this massive problem of our cities, or are we just going to sort of organically move
them out of town? Fred? Fred Siegel: The huge cities, the 19th-century
cities that were created no longer have an economic rationale. New York cannot sustain 7.5 million people
economically. We grew these enormous cities when the railroad
was the primary means of transportation, when it was — all energy was concentrated in
these focal points. The automobile, the truck has dispersed population,
dispersed economic activities long before the fax and the computer. Cities can never again have the role they
once had. Ben Wattenberg: Is that the good news or the
bad news? Fred Siegel: It’s the facts. It’s neither good nor — cities have to
adjust. Cities have a tremendous role in the future. Creativity — intellectual creativity, economic
creativity — is going to take place in cities like New York and Los Angeles, where the digital
economy is being created as we sit here. That’s going to give cities an important
role for the future. There was a very interesting story recently. MCI moved out of Washington, moved to Boulder,
Colorado. They discovered that the creativity dried
up. Jim Sleeper: Colorado Springs. Fred Siegel: Colorado Springs. People couldn’t operate there. Ester Fuchs: They all went skiing. Fred Siegel: They needed a cosmopolitan atmosphere
where people are constantly interacting on a face-to-face basis. Jim Sleeper: They decided it’s been a mistake. Fred Siegel: It’s been a mistake because
— Jim Sleeper: And they’re still out there. Ben Wattenberg: And now they want to — Fred Siegel: — they lack in Colorado Springs
the energy, the diversity that allows for a kind of intellectual creativity in the economy. Ben Wattenberg: So you think there is a role
for cities, but it’s not going to be — Fred Siegel: It’s a different one. It’s not megacities. You know, Manhattan has an economic future;
it’s not clear that the city of five boroughs has an economic future. The San Fernando Valley is seceding from Los
Angeles. It’s not clear that the unified city of
Los Angeles has an economic future. But the creative forces of the economy are
going to be places like the Bay Area, San Jose, Los Angeles, and New York and Boston. These cities have a bright future. Ester Fuchs: Cities have an important role
in the future of the economy, but it’s not all cities. And that’s part of the problem, you know,
with the general conversation. There are global cities, like New York, Miami,
Chicago, Los Angeles, which will be connected to this world economy that we’re dealing
with now, and they are different in kind than Newark or Gary, Indiana, or cities which have
essentially been ravaged by deindustrialization, were one-company towns and now are basically
bastions of poverty. There are cities which are too small which
have declined to such a point in which they don’t have any economic base in which to
sell themselves anymore to anybody. And I think that — Ben Wattenberg: For example, which ones? I know you said Gary and Newark. Ester Fuchs: I would say Gary, Camden, even
Newark. Fred Siegel: East St. Louis. Ester Fuchs: That these were cities which
were company towns which essentially lost their company, and the result of that is dramatic
economic decline and concentrations of poverty. And our problem now in a federal system is
that we’re telling these cities that they need to create an economic base to support
these poverty populations. It doesn’t make any sense. So that we need a policy which addresses that
problem separately. Jim Sleeper: I agree with Esther about the
global city thing. We can’t predict what the economic configurations
will be. But in the meantime, I think it’s true that
those cities are needed not only for intellectual creativity, but as a staging ground, as a
crucible for immigrants. Clearly, you have to have immigrant enclaves
in cities. Those kinds of things are going to work for
the half dozen cities she mentioned. For the others, I agree, it’s very problematic
unless there’s some new kind of economic investment that we haven’t envisioned yet. And the last point on that is, in 1975, in
New York, people never foresaw the immense financial services boom. Even here, people thought it was all going
to shrink to five million men. It didn’t in part — Ben Wattenberg: Five million people. Jim Sleeper: That’s right. Things do pop up, but not everywhere and not
in every place. Ben Wattenberg: Michael Meyers, last word. Michael Meyers: Well, some cities will be
dysfunctional, and they won’t be revitalized. There are some cities that must be revitalized
and must survive, like New York City, like Los Angeles. And as you look at the suburbs, you need cities,
at the very least, for the people who will get tired of the suburbs to come back to. [Laughter.] And moreover, you have problems going out
to the suburbs. All kind of city problems are going out to
find themselves in the suburbs — crime and drugs and — Ester Fuchs: Housing. Michael Meyers: — and housing problems. And so I think, you know, as we build our
society, we have to really think about, like town and gown, we have to think about city
and suburb as being joined. Our destiny is joined because we are one people. Let’s get back together and act like that. Ben Wattenberg: Thank you, Fred Siegel, Ester
Fuchs, Michael Meyers, and Jim Sleeper. And thank you. We enjoy hearing from our viewers. Please send your comments and questions to
New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. We can also be reached via email at [email protected]
or on the World Wide Web at www.thinktank.com. For “Think Tank,” I’m Ben Wattenberg. Announcer: This has been a production of BJW
Inc., in association with New River Media, which are solely responsible for its content.

Plagiarism: Real Life Examples (Part 2 of 3)


All right class, all right. Your first writing assignment is a 5-8 page paper about Shakespeare’s Hamlet the paper
should have footnotes and bibliography and of course if there are any academic integrity violations, you will receive a F for the paper. I better read through my rough draft and make sure I did this right it is due tomorrow. (student goes over several highlighted lines) Those are direct quotes and need footnotes, one here and here. This part is all my opinion. Now here we go … (reviewing paper) … Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a complex syntax
of over 600 words new to the English language. I better check my notes. that part is from the “Introduction to the Anthology.” (writer is still thinking out loud going over the paper) I reworded it, but I use Stephen
Greenblatt’s idea. I am going to have to footnote that. Both Seuss and Shakespeare have worldwide appeal…. okay… this sentences is me. Dr. Seuss has been translated into eighteen different foreign languages and Shakespeare has
been translated into over 80 languages. Well I got those statistics
from an online article and that needs a footnote. Shakespeare
has been around longer and has more opportunity for translation It is my conclusion… Alright that part starting there is
all my idea. I’m OK, now all I need to do is make sure
that I use the right format for the footnotes and the bibliography. Okay now I am ready to hand this in tomorrow.