Tag Archive : that

/ that

Why Batman’s New Costume Could Be Made From A Gun


Damn, Bruce…that’s metal. Footage from a camera test for The Batman
featuring Robert Pattinson in the Batsuit has officially been unveiled, and fans are
already picking it apart. Among their more fascinating discoveries:
Batman’s chest plate appears to have been made from repurposed materials. Although the footage is bathed in red light,
it does reveal a pretty sweet-looking Batsuit with a solemn Robert Pattinson demonstrating
that, at the very least, he has the right jaw for the part. The chest plate really turned heads, though;
at first glance, it simply appears to be mechanical, possibly made from a pair of Batarangs or
some other gadgets of the type that the Dark Knight is inclined to utilize. At second glance, though, it looks like something
much more hardcore: pieces of a gun. “Bob? Gun.” Now, we know what you may be thinking: Batman
doesn’t use guns. Heck, he hates guns. Why on Earth would he have pieces of one embedded
in his costume? Fans think they know the answer, and if you
haven’t guessed it yet, prepare for a big ol’ explosion inside your cranium. The theory is that it isn’t just any gun that
Batman may have used to construct his chest plate. Fans believe that the possible gun in question
will serve to remind Bruce Wayne, every single time he goes to put on that suit, why he’s
putting himself in danger to protect the citizens of Gotham. The gun that can prod him to think of the
innocent lives that might be lost if he should lose his focus the gun that set him on the
path to becoming the Batman in the first place. That’s right: the idea goes that protecting
Batman’s heart in the new Batsuit could be the gun that was used to kill his parents. Fans weren’t the only ones to jump on this
possibility. Filmmaker and comic book writer Kevin Smith
was among the first to notice that the insignia on the new Batman costume could be made from
a gun because if it’s indeed true, he’s likely the one that gave the film’s team the idea. Smith was among the many writers to participate
in the creation of Detective Comics #1000, a 2019 tome that featured a plethora of intriguing
Batman tales. In Smith’s story, Bruce Wayne melted down
the firearm that was used in his parents’ murder, fashioning it into a plate that was
hidden under the logo on his chest. If this is true, it could be a very savvy
move. The murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne is a
well-known and oft-depicted element of Batman’s story, and it’d be easy to make the case that
The Batman would do well to avoid revisiting that particular plot point. Using their murder weapon as an element of
Batman’s costume could serve as a compelling visual signifier of the Dark Knight’s origin
a way to ensure that even if they’re never even seen onscreen, the Waynes’ presence will
loom large over The Batman’s narrative. The gun that killed Batman’s parents also
appears in an arguably even more significant way in the pages of the wondrously loony Batman:
Year Two. At a tense point in the first issue’s narrative,
Bruce Wayne decides that the proper way to avenge his parents’ deaths is to take the
gun involved in their murder and fire it at someone else. Circling back to the new Batman costume, fans
have pointed out that it seems to be something of an amalgam of a number of Batsuits past. Among its more prominent features is a popped
collar, which calls to mind the design of the cowl in Gotham by Gaslight, the 1989 comic
and later animated film that posited an alternate version of Batman operating in the Victorian
era. “I need your files on the Ripper.” The shoulder pieces and overall aesthetic
of the new Batsuit also seem to owe a lot to Batman’s design in the Arkham video game
series particularly 2015’s Arkham Knight while the mask is reminiscent of nothing so much
as the classic design from Tim Burton’s original 1989 flick Batman. If the Batman team was going for a best-of-all-worlds
kind of feel with the new Batsuit, then so far, it’s looking like they pretty much nailed
it. The Batman is scheduled for release on June
25, 2021. Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus, even more Looper videos about your favorite
DC characters are coming soon. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the
bell so you don’t miss a single one.

How To Find Your PASSION In Life In 2020 | Find Your True Purpose ft. Tom Bilyeu


No one is born with a passion,
right? You would
imagine me saying that Steve Jobs was born with a passion for technology,
what if he’d been born 7000 years ago? 50 000 years ago?
Would he still have that, would he be dreaming of the iPhone?
No, of course not. So,
where you grow up is going to influence your outcomes
far more than who you are. Like,
this is terrifying, the greatest predictor of your future success
is the ZIP code in which you grow up, it’s not your IQ.
It’s all about like, what are you going to build?
Like at what point do you look inside the brain
and go: “Ohhh,
this is how it works”. And so,
I’m going to build desire.
So, building desire is one of the most misunderstood
things in the world.
It’s like when people say, “Oh my god I’m in love with this woman”
and they think it’s gonna be like that forever and when that wains
and they break up and they keep chasing that initial high
without recognizing, that’s just not the truth of human
neurochemistry. It’s never gonna be like that.
So, it starts with that just all-consuming drug-like
quality and then it smooths out into something
that’s long term pair-bonding and you have to know how to ride those waves.
So, desire is very much the same, you have to learn how to fan those flames,
to take an ember of interest and turn it into a raging inferno.
So, when I was at Quest, my raging inferno,
my reason for existing, was to end metabolic disease.
Well, now I’m doing Impact Theory and I’m not thinking about metabolic disease
anymore, I’m thinking
about the poor mindset
and I’m trying to save people from their ZIP code
is an easy way to think of it. And so, I
fan those flames,
which is something I wasn’t even thinking about when I was at quest ,
so it’s like, you can very much pivot,
you can decide. But it has to be something real,
like these are real things, I really did care
about ending metabolic disease because of my family,
I really do care about the ZIP code being a predictor
because of people I’ve loved in my life who have succumb to that,
my inability to help them up to this point. So it’s like,
you take that initial spark and then you cultivate it like you would a
fire. So,
“techne” is an ancient Greek word that is a set of skills,
that matter to you, that you work extraordinarily hard to build
so they are unique to you, that allow you to serve not only yourself,
but other people. So, we are a social creature.
So, I always want people to understand,
there are certain things in you, hardwired into you,
that if you ignore, you ignore at your peril,
and if you leverage, can really propel you forward.
Such as helping other people. It feels good.
It’s so immediate, when you do something nice for somebody,
you feel that right then man,
it feels awesome, and like when you see people,
like really, like fighting
and just like, think of
hurricane Katrina to use an American
disaster where people flew from all over to come and
help and save people,
and it’s like, dude,
people working more than 24 hours without stopping,
working until they collapse, it’s crazy!
But, when you feel like you can help another human
being alleviate suffering,
people go all in man. That is innate to us,
we want to do that! We’re gonna get this neuro-feedback loop
of, “This feels awesome”,
“I feel good”, “I feel urgency”,
“I can not stop myself, I have to help”.
And that’s so powerful. And if you can make your business about that,
now all the sudden like, the thing for me I hate:
working with my hands. I hate it.
I hate grease on my hands, all that.
And I was having to repair equipment
which is something I absolutely hate. So, when I was under equipment,
and I’m talking about, you’re working,
it’s 2AM on a Friday and your knuckles are bleeding from like
trying to fix something, and you’re thinking,
“What am I doing?” I kept saying,
“I’m here to save my mom and my sister” because they were morbidly obese.
And I knew if I couldn’t give them food they could choose
based on taste that happened to be good for them,
that I would literally lose them too soon. And so, I was like,
“That’s what this is about, that’s why I’m here,
I’m not here to get rich, I am here to save my mom and my sister”.
When people say, if you just want it
and you’re going after it, it’s gonna happen.
I will tell a very different story. So the struggle is guaranteed,
the success is not. The money may never come.
So, every great success story
has a certain element of timing, there’s certain amount of luck that goes
into it, now you have to prepared to be able to capitalize
on that, like the inhuman amount of work
that we did to launch Quest, to launch Impact Theory,
most people just are definitely not going to work that hard,
that tenaciously for that long, or get that good and face their inadequacies
day after day, but at the same time,
for it to be the kind of success that it was there was timing involved.
So, it became readily apparent to me
that I may never get rich,
but I could definitely do something that I loved every day.
And so, what I know is,
even if I lost my money, that
through simple things like being grateful, being willing to build from the ground up
again, putting in the work,
doing something that’s meaningful, serving not just myself,
but other people, I can live a life that’s fulfilling
and since that’s the only thing that really affects your neurochemistry,
cause I’m always telling people, look,
the punchline of life is not wealth, it’s not fame,
it’s not admiration, it’s how you feel about yourself
when you’re by yourself. That doesn’t require wealth,
in fact wealth can’t touch that. So,
now becoming a badass, like that will make you feel good about yourself,
and that’s something that nobody can take away.
We all have the ability to change. And if people really knew who I was before,
because they have a hard time believing it, when they see me now,
but I’m like, go ask my mum,
who was surprised that I succeeded.
Ask my father-in-law who did not want me to marry his daughter.
Ask my best friend. All the people who knew me the most,
were like, “We did not expect you to be successful”.
My mom recently told me that when I told her I was going to get rich
that, her and my aunts and uncles used to laugh
at me behind my back,
cause they were like, “Bless this kid, he’s, you know, just
a.. a dreamer, but he’s never actually going to get rich”.
So, when you realise,
there is a process to go from hopelessly average to accomplishing something
really extraordinary and that any human who meets what I call minimum
requirements, so if you do that and you put in the work,
you can get the result. And I’ll say that the result is fulfillment,
you’re not necessarily ever going to achieve wealth,
but you can achieve deep fulfillment, do amazing,
serve yourself, serve other people,
like you can do some really really incredible stuff.
I think that’s far more open to people than they think,
going back to my original… what I was talking about is,
I don’t want people focused on the money, cause the money’s not gonna change how you
feel, but if you focus on the fulfillment,
of “techne”, building up this rad skillset
that’s letting you serve yourself and other people
and then marry it to business savvy, your odds of becoming financially successful
skyrocket! That’s, where I hope people get their heads
around, that fulfillment really is the punchline,
but if you wanna express that in a way that generates wealth for yourself,
it is very
very real!
That is a very real possibility.

Does liberalism have a future? (1996) | THINK TANK


Ben Wattenberg: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg.
As we head into the 1996 presidential election, some issues already seem to have been settled,
at least rhetorically. It’s not whether to balance the budget; it’s how soon. It’s
not whether the government should be shrunk; it’s how much it should be shrunk. It’s
not whether welfare should be reformed; it’s how. Now, these are conservative ideas in the saddle.
Is liberalism in retreat? Joining us to sort through the conflict and
consensus are E. J. Dionne, author of “They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate
the Next Political Era”; Ronald Walters, chairman of the political science department
at Howard University and author of “Black Presidential Politics in America”; Todd
Gitlin, professor of sociology at New York University and author of “The Twilight of
Common Dreams”; and Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute. A few weeks ago on this program, we looked
at the future of conservativism. The question before this house: Does liberalism have a
future? This week on “Think Tank.” Ben Wattenberg: This is not the first time
that liberalism has been declared dead. Listen to this. Quotes: “Liberals meet in Washington
these days, if they can endure to meet at all, to discuss the tragic outlook for all
liberal proposals, the collapse of all liberal leadership, and the inevitable defeat of all
liberal aims.” End quotes. Does that sound like 1995 or 1996? Archibald
MacLeish wrote those words in 1944. Well, so where is liberalism today? Since
World War II, a central idea of liberalism was to strengthen the role of the federal
government. But here is what President Bill Clinton, a Democrat and often described as
a liberal, has to say about that. President Bill Clinton [from videotape]: The
era of big government is over. [Applause.] Ben Wattenberg: Affirmative action, another
hallmark of recent liberalism, is unpopular and under attack. In California, a statewide
referendum seeks to ban it entirely. And critics, like our panelist Todd Gitlin, argue that
some liberals are so hung up over issues of race, ethnicity, and sex, the so-called identity
politics, that the broader liberal coalition has been fractured. And finally, economics. Liberalism promised
that government intervention would result in growth and job security. But in an era
of global competition, high technology, and downsizing, economic problems seem immune
to liberal remedies. Union membership, for example, is sinking. Economic insecurity is
rising. The government seems paralyzed. Well, that’s a nice picture. Let us go around
the room once, starting with you, E. J. Dionne. Is liberalism dead, or does it only look dead,
which is almost the title of your book? E. J. Dionne: I think liberalism is coming
back to life, almost precisely for the reasons you said: that when people are going through
a period of economic insecurity and uncertainty, they look for some new rules and they look
for some help to seize the opportunities of a new era. In the past, that’s when they’ve
turned to liberal progressive politicians, and I think they’re going to do so again. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Will Marshall. Alive,
dead, moribund? Will Marshall: Well, a certain kind of liberalism,
New Deal liberalism, interest group liberalism, I think is moribund, or at least we should
regard it as being in an honorable retirement. The question then is: How does liberalism
adapt itself to a whole new set of national challenges? And the good news for liberalism
is that the alternative today, anti-liberalism, doesn’t address those challenges, either. Ben Wattenberg: Ron Walters. Alive, dead? Ronald Walters: Well, I think that it can’t
die. I think also it depends on how you actually define it. You can’t have a liberalism which
is dead with respect to interest group politics because this country is multicultural-izing,
so is the globe, and so you really do have to have a philosophy which looks for the expansion
not only of government, but for the expansion of opportunity. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Todd Gitlin. Todd Gitlin: I think liberalism has hopes.
And what is going to make the difference in terms of whether it converts its hopes into
actuality is whether it convinces enough people that if they don’t get serious about finding
some common dream, that they will just lapse into the arms of big business and all of the
reasons why big government came into existence in the first place. Ben Wattenberg: Your common dreams, as I understood
what Ron Walters said, are not Ron Walters’ common dreams. Todd Gitlin: We have to have a discussion
about what common dreams are. I mean, I think there will be a debate. Republicans will say
the common dream is that everybody gets to be an entrepreneur. I think that’s ridiculous,
but that is an idea about what people have in common. My idea and many other people’s idea is
that what people have in common is that they have certain obligations to the maintenance
of a society that’s whole and certain needs, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness, but also a right to a decent livelihood, a right to security of person,
a right to public institutions, like schools and public transportation, that people need
to live. I don’t know if we disagree on that, but
I think a lot of people do agree on what’s happened in the recent years. Ben Wattenberg: Ron goes beyond that. Is that
correct? Ronald Walters: I would certainly go beyond
that. I think he’s right in terms of the dream, but I think the difference is between
the dream and the reality. When you look at the reality — we share the dream, but the
reality is that some people are much closer to the dream than others, and therein lies
the problem. Are you going to have a definition of liberalism which only gives us sort of
an intellectual vision of that dream, or are you going to have a definition of liberalism
which is functional? And if you do, you’ve got to run up against the ability of government
to provide expanding opportunity. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but you are saying,
on a race-specific or gender-specific or ethnically specific grounds, is as a way to measure? Ronald Walters: I would say yes. Otherwise,
you really don’t have a measuring rod. You can’t define it, I think, only by economic
opportunity. You’ve got to look at these groups that are coming into society, immigrants
included, and say to yourself, if the demographics are right, by the year 2050, only 52 percent
of this country is going to be white. So there is a tremendous continuing discussion about
the nature of America, about the changes that are going to go on, and therefore the basis
of liberalism. Todd Gitlin: Excuse me, but those demographics
aren’t right. There’s no way to predict how people are going to feel about who they
are two or three generations hence. What will it mean to be white? What will it mean to
be Hispanic? There is a tremendous amount of intermarriage already. The confidence with
which these claims are made by the Census Bureau I think is scientifically invalid. E. J. Dionne: What I’d like to say is if
you go back to — Ben Wattenberg: I think you’re right. E. J. Dionne: If you go back to sort of what
the liberal idea has been on these subjects, the issue is not: Are we going to be an all-quota
society or a color-blind society where we pretend there’s no such thing as racism?
Liberals have always asserted that cultural pluralism is a good thing, recognizing the
enormous contributions of all groups to this country, that that’s a good thing, that
racism is a particular problem that we continue to have. That’s very different from saying that we
want to racialize every question, that every issue, whether it’s public schools or public
transportation or how you’re going to get a job, that these are all racial questions.
Most African Americans don’t think that way. Most white people don’t think that
way. Most Hispanics don’t think that way. Now, I think liberals have always asserted
that we respect the fact that we’ve got to do something about racism, which is a particular
problem. We also respect the fact that we are one country that has always had a common
dream, as Todd has said. Will Marshall: I agree that that’s a traditional
view of liberalism and one we desperately need to get back to, but it’s not the current
view. Liberalism today is bound up with the notion of biology is destiny and the politicization
of all issues around this corralling of people into racial, ethnic, and gender categories. And I think that’s a tremendous liability
to contemporary liberalism because what it does is it prevents us from having the kind
of civic empathy that we need to have, prevents us from looking beyond our group identity
toward some broader community. And I think before we get back to that, it’s going to
be impossible for Democrats and liberals to reconnect to the economic anxieties and aspirations
of the middle class. And that, after all, is the big political challenge we’re facing. Ronald Walters: But you know, I think that
will only happen when you really do address the issue of groups. You can’t leap over
groups because groups were the basis of a certain sense of subordination in this country.
Slavery was based upon groups. At the time of the manumission of slaves in 1865, 90 percent
of all blacks were in slavery. There was a group basis of that subordination. And so if you look even down as far as 1960
and ask how many blacks made the average family income, it was only 5 percent. Ninety-five
percent, as the basis of subordination of blacks, didn’t make even the average family
income. So you can’t then leap over, 30 years later, to start talking about individuals
unless you deal with that basis of group subordination, which is part of the legacy of this country. Ben Wattenberg: Let me just go back to what
we said in the setup piece and just see if we are in agreement on that, that the current
consensus in the country is that we do want a balanced budget, that we do want to reduce
the size of government, that we do want serious welfare reform, and that in fact those ideas
and many others that we could all list are in fact — have their roots in the conservative
ideology, and that seems to be the way the country is going. E. J. Dionne: Yes, Americans in principle
think we shouldn’t run a big deficit. But we just had a controlled experiment in 1995.
And the Republicans said, okay, we want to cut back the growth in Medicare, Medicaid,
education spending. We want to cut back on environmental regulations. And the electorate
quite clearly said, wait a minute, that’s not what we think we voted for in 1994. So
the public — sure, the public wants fiscal sanity, but it also believes that a lot of
these things, including things you helped fight for when you worked for LBJ, have been
successful programs that they want to save. Todd Gitlin: The thing about it is Americans
want everything at once. They want all these things. They want apple pie, but they also
want — they want pie à la mode. They also want health care. They also want raising of
the minimum wage. They also want a lot of things that they think they’re entitled
to get. Will Marshall: It’s so important that we
don’t let this notion that any attack on bureaucratic liberal programs is a conservative
one. Take welfare, for example. Fundamental welfare reform is something that 80–90 percent
of the people of this country are for. It cuts across all racial and class lines, and
it doesn’t — you don’t have to be conservative to want to reform the welfare system. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan and other notable liberals have been trying to do it for decades. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but the notable liberals
who ran the Congress in 1993 and 1994 were not anxious to reform welfare. You know that
better than anyone. Will Marshall: I do. E. J. Dionne: They didn’t pass health care
reform, either. They failed in Congress. Will Marshall: I’m not saying that liberals
are not defending failed bureaucratic programs. They are, and that’s one of their principal
— or another liability. My point is that the alternative all too often is simply kind
of a mirror image agenda on the right that says let’s tear down the liberal achievement
edifice that they built over the last 60 years, but they don’t have any idea about what
they’re going to replace it with. And that’s where they keep failing. It’s a dismantling
agenda, not an agenda that replaces programs that aren’t working with approaches that
hold out more promise. Ben Wattenberg: Let me ask a tactical question.
As we have this discussion in mid-April, for all the moaning about how poorly liberalism
is doing, Bill Clinton is beating Bob Dole in the polls by about 12 to 15 points. Is
Clinton riding high because there is a resurgence of liberalism or because he has, at least
cosmetically, made a U-turn? E. J. Dionne: How about neither? I mean, I
think in one sense, Bill Clinton defined himself first with a — he had a fight with the Republican
Congress, and he said, “Look, I stand for this, this, this, and this. I disagree with
them on that.” Wherever you stood on the issues, I think that helped give him a presence
in this country. It was something people respected. He could define himself against the Republicans. I think secondly, a lot of these things he’s
talking about — for example, throwing criminals out of housing projects, talking about the
family — he’s done that since 1992. Ben Wattenberg: You don’t feel that in 1993
and 1994, when you had a Democratic president, Clinton, and an all Democratic Congress, that
he went substantially to the left of what he ran on? Because he believes that. E. J. Dionne: See, I don’t think the voters
— if you look at Clinton’s first two years, I think a lot of voters did not say he went
too far to the left or too far to the right. They say, “Gee, the Democrats failed. They
said they’d give us health care reform, and it failed. They said they’d give us
welfare reform, and it failed. They said they’d give us political reform, and it failed. They
said they’d help give us job training and education, and that kind of got shrunk in
the budget.” So I think a lot of voters pull back not because of the ideological stuff,
but because they sense, “Gee, we expected more from these guys.” Ronald Walters: Let me just say, these were
the seeds of 1994, too. That accounts for the election of 1994. But in seizing a conservative
mandate as a reaction to that, what happened is I think that the Newt Gingrich politics
hit a wall. And I think that’s what the American people are responding to. Will Marshall: What the polling shows now,
interestingly, is that Republicans are down. There’s no question about it. Something
in their rush at the budget and this array of programs, many of which are still popular,
scared a lot of folks, and they are down. But Democrats have not gone up correspondingly.
I mean, that’s the era we’re in now. We’re in a three — you know, it’s a three-way
split now. There’s a huge group of unaffiliated, nonaligned voters who hold the balance of
American politics. That’s why I would be most unconfident if I were a Democratic strategist
now about this temporary uptick in Bill Clinton’s popularity ratings. But let me go back to the point E. J. made.
I mean, E. J.’s right about the failure of Clinton and the Democratic Congress to
deliver, but the problem is much more fundamental than that. The Democratic Party and contemporary
liberalism is defending a regime that’s dying. It’s defending an old top-down, bureaucratic
way of solving problems that people simply lack confidence in. It’s the same problem,
I think, of parties of the democratic left in Europe, which is why many of them have
been out of power for a long time. We’ve got to think through what governance
means in a new era and find new ways of solving problems. That’s what the public’s looking
for. That’s the kind of — [Cross talk.] Ben Wattenberg: Wait. Hold on a minute. Todd Gitlin: Parts of the government work
well. You know, you call Social Security for advice, you are going to get it much faster
than if you call a lot of private corporations. People want the government to be active. They
want the government to get results. They’re pragmatic about where the results come from. I think that what liberalism has to make sure
it doesn’t do is to sacrifice its soul, and its soul has rested on a matter that we
haven’t really talked about yet, which is a real conviction about equality, equality
of persons, equality in access to opportunity, equality in an absolute rejection of discrimination.
And I think it’s extremely important, whether Bill Clinton wins or not, that that side of
the liberal vision not be sacrificed. Will Marshall: That’s very true, and I agree
entirely, but I want to make a distinction between ends and means. You’re exactly right
about equality. That’s the soul. That’s — we have to maintain that commitment. But
it doesn’t follow that there’s one monochromatic way of going about that. Todd Gitlin: Right, but let’s say we want
to make sure that it’s absolutely intolerable to discriminate in employment or housing or
lending. How are you going to do that without calling a government agency in to enforce
the law? Will Marshall: Well, of course no one’s
saying repeal antidiscrimination laws. That’s not what I’m — Todd Gitlin: No, we have laws, but they’re
not enforced. We need enforcement. Will Marshall: They should be enforced. I
agree with stepped-up enforcement. But my point is there are lots of things that we’re
trying to do in government, some of them under the rubric of equality. Let’s take our social welfare policies,
which we know now — the evidence is overwhelming — that they’ve been failing. They’ve
become dysfunctional. They’ve begun to underwrite problems in inner-city communities. And yet
we’ve been unable to come to grips with those problems and reimagine the way we try
to lift people out of poverty. Todd Gitlin: See, that — Ben Wattenberg: Let me just interrupt here
for a moment. You know, there’s an old saying, “If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be
a bus,” okay, “but she doesn’t have wheels.” You guys, particularly you, Will,
but many of you, certainly you, E. J., just now, are saying, oh, if liberalism would just
change this and just change that and just recognize that you really have to do welfare
reform and you have to do this and you have to do that, then they would be back — but
that’s not what liberals have been doing for 30 years. They’ve been going bananas
by my light. Yes? E. J. Dionne: But we’re not talking about
years. We’re talking about, I think — Ben Wattenberg: They wouldn’t be liberals. E. J. Dionne: — a real reform in the way
— look at Todd’s book, for example. Take Todd’s book, “The Twilight of Common Dreams.”
Todd wrote a very good critique of a certain style of multiculturalism. And it was a critique
from the left because he said, “The problem with this is not just the things the conservatives
say about it. The problem with this is that in fact it takes our eye off the ball of a
genuinely fair and equal society.” That’s — Todd’s book is an example of this. I think some of Will’s ideas have been accepted
by large numbers of liberals about the need to — I mean, for example, all the stuff
Will has written about civic life and the importance of strengthening our civic sense
and third sectors in society. Some of those ideas started on the right. They didn’t
all come from the right. Actually, some of them came from the new left, but this notion
that you need a strong civic life, that’s popular, too. Ronald Walters: But you know, you’ve got
an intellectualism of both the left and the right here, which I think is wrong, because
so much of this really is spinning without the people who are really affected. When you
come to assess things like poverty, yes, you’re right, Will, a lot of people want changes
in the welfare system. But the fact is you cannot say that it didn’t do what it was
designed to do. The fact that people want to change it now is quite another discussion
altogether. They want to turn it into a jobs program. Now, we had a jobs program, and Reagan
killed it, so that now they want to turn the welfare program into a jobs program. That’s
fine. But we really have to be honest about the
ideological currents which come through and change things. We can’t say that everything
failed because these things haven’t. We have to talk to the people who came through
welfare and who made an honest living today out of a welfare system that worked for what
it was designed to do. Ben Wattenberg: If Sen. Dole wins the election
in November of 1996, you will have for the first time in at least 70 years a Republican
conservative — mainstream conservative president, a Republican conservative Senate, House, sympathetic
Supreme Court, control of the governorships, and probable control of the state legislatures
and state legislators, as well as the mayors of Los Angeles and New York. This is unheard
of in contemporary American politics, unheard of. If that happens — and that’s just
on the election of Dole — is liberalism really in the ditch for a long time to come,
because won’t the other guys really get their shot? E. J. Dionne: Well, first of all, that’s
like, “If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bus.” I mean, you are positive — Ben Wattenberg: Oh, no. That’s just one
election. That’s who’s going to win the election. Todd Gitlin: If one of her wheels falls off,
she’ll be in a ditch. E. J. Dionne: No, but two things. One, that
scenario you just described is actually Clinton’s ace in the hole, because what all the polls
show is the country really is uncomfortable with the prospect of this kind of unified
conservative government because they think they’ll go too far. To go back to your history, you worked for
LBJ. A lot of the stuff you guys did worked for the country. Medicare worked, food stamps
worked, civil rights worked, voting rights worked. This is a good legacy. Ben Wattenberg: I agree with that. E. J. Dionne: There’s nothing to be ashamed
of in this legacy. Ben Wattenberg: I agree with that. Don’t
you think that many of those programs were carried by liberals over the edge too far? E. J. Dionne: Well, how too far? I mean, has
Medicare gone too far? Is it too expensive? Sure, all — the whole health system is.
Has it gone too far? I don’t think so. Todd Gitlin: These programs were popular at
a time when the country felt rich, the country was unrivalled, and Americans felt, “Well,
let’s do more of the same. There’s no bad price for it.” Today people feel you
can’t have everything at once, but this doesn’t mean that these were not great achievements.
It also means that they have to be reformed. But nobody’s willing to get rid of them. Ronald Walters: That’s what I mean by change
in the intellectual mood, and I think we have to look at the forces that were responsible
for that. I mean, you had — in two or three decades, you had a downturn in the economy.
You’ve got people now who are very afraid, and I think that when people get afraid, they
start changing their evaluation. It’s not that the programs changed; it’s that the
evaluation has changed. Ben Wattenberg: What would you — if you
had to — if you had a paragraph to tell liberals how to govern and recapture the mainstream
of American thought and action, what would you tell them to do? E. J. Dionne: I think the main concerns for
Americans right now are both economic and moral. The economic is a sense of economic
insecurity and worry, as President Clinton said, that people who work hard and play by
the rules aren’t going to be rewarded. That in turn is a moral question. Now, I think liberals have to be unabashed
about saying that economics and morality are linked and that if we want liberalism to revive,
it’s going to have to do what it did for about a hundred years in our country, which
is tell people to use government not to make people dependent, but to enhance people’s
opportunities, to let them seize the chances in this new era, and to create a sense that
the rules are fair that they’re competing under. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Todd. Todd Gitlin: I would say liberalism has to
support the fiber of the country. It has to be committed to those institutions which increase
the access of all people to their common human heritage, and that includes reinvented government,
government that works, and it also includes unions and it includes public schools and
it includes metropolitan government and all of those forces that enable Americans to live
in a world with each other. Ben Wattenberg: Ron Walters. Ronald Walters: You’ve got to show people
a vision of the future. You’ve got to show them that this country is becoming more diverse.
I don’t think you can roll that back. I don’t think we need to be frightened of
it. I think we need to have a rational vision of what this country is going to be like,
and I think that we have to locate somewhere the source of our economic fears, I think,
because you can say that the white males are leading a conservative revolution, but at
the end of the day, someone has to explain to them in nonracial terms, nonimmigrant terms,
what is happening to them. And I think that once we get some of these explanations right,
I think then liberalism can show the path to leadership, and government has to play
a role. Ben Wattenberg: Will Marshall, you’re batting
cleanup. Will Marshall: I think liberalism has to adapt.
It’s got to identify itself once again as the party of innovation and new thinking.
For about the last 20 years, we’ve been in rearguard positions, defending the old
achievements, unwilling to admit criticism of them, and unwilling to offer something
better. Until we get into the arena and fight, you know, the battle of persuasion with the
American people that we have better ideas that are updated to new circumstances, we’re
not going to be competitive electorally. Ben Wattenberg: If it had wheels, it would
be a bus. Thank you very much, E. J. Dionne, Will Marshall, Todd Gitlin, and Ron Walters.
And thank you. And now we would like to announce part two
of our bumper sticker contest. In part one, we asked viewers to make up bumper sticker
slogans for or against President Clinton. For example, the anti-Clinton winning entry
was: “Clinton: 99 percent fact free.” A pro-Clinton entry was: “Clinton sax beats
Dole-drums.” This time we are looking for bumper stickers
for or against the Republican nominee, Bob Dole. So please send your entries plus any
other comments or questions to New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036.
We can be reached by 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.

5.7×28 ammo actually designed for defense? Speer Gold Dot 5.7


shot show 2020 was all in a lather
about 5.7x28mm. that’s that cartridge that we’ve had for a good
long while but really it hasn’t been able to generate the continuous interest
because of a couple of factors first off the firearms themselves tend to be quite
expensive you have the FN p90 or the ps90 and then you have the FN five-seven
and both of those yeah they’re kind of pricey they’re kind of proprietary
they’re their own thing and they’re not very easy to get into it’s not the sort
of thing that you go to your local gun store and you can find it there on the
shelves the ammo is another really big issue because for the longest time we
had two loads we had a full metal jacket load from FN and then we had a blue tip
sort of varmint style cartridge with it with a Hornady projectile that was also from
FN and then in recent years we have at least had one other less expensive and
more universally available option and that’s the federal American Eagle those
guys at least had a good plinking ammo but really there was a big gap there
we’ve had these ammunition types that aren’t necessarily that great for
terminal performance so if you wanted to be able to use one in a defensive
handgun or rifle you’re not exactly sure what you’re gonna get and FMJ might
tumble it might not it kind of depends maybe on distance on twist rate all
kinds of other things and then those Hornady blue tips I’m gonna put links to
videos here they do have really good performance but then in ballistics gel
it seems to be kind of spotty you’re never quite sure if they’re gonna open
up all the way what the wound channel is gonna look like there have been
different people that have produced these videos and gotten different
results and that I think leads to this next announcement at shot that for me
was the one that really stood out because finally okay yes we have the
Ruger 57 that was announced and everybody’s you know really happy that
we finally have a more affordable accurate and just more ergonomic it
seems like it’s going to be a really great pistol option for the cartridge
and then on the rifle side we have see MMG releasing a couple of different
ways to get at the cartridge they have their full rifles they have their uppers
and now they have that special kit where you can either build using parts or you
can slap a full upper onto a normal AR and you can start using the cartridge
using magazines that will fit into the AR mag well which is just really cool
and it’s actually what we’re going to be doing here on the channel so make sure
that you hit the notification bell down below to see when these videos come out
we’re gonna be building an upper actually I think we’re just going to be
slapping one on top we’re gonna take one of their full built uppers put it on
there and show just how easy it is to take an existing pistol lower and put an
upper on there and then turn it to five seven but the the big gap that we’re
still looking at is ammunition because we don’t have a dedicated high
performance defensive ammunition and at shot show we finally got the
announcement that we’ve been waiting for the ammunition is not available yet and
there’s just about no data on it however Speer is going to release a forty
grain gold dot load for this cartridge which is going to really fix a lot of
things yes it’s probably going to be a bit on the expensive side especially
compared to like the blinking ammo that you get from federal American Eagle so
great if you want to go to the range and fire the the American Eagle that’s gonna
be much less expensive and you’ll be able to kind of get used to your firearm
but then if you want to be able to load up your defensive sidearm or maybe you
have a truck gun maybe you have one of the the AR style pistols whatever you
want to build this out as you finally are gonna have something that will have
consistent terminal performance at least that’s what I expect so far there have
been no details like I mentioned about there’s nothing about velocity about
overall length we just have some photos and an indication that it is going to be
a forty grain projectile we have been testing gold dot projectiles for the past
couple months now in 223 and we’ve tested a couple
different weights as well so we’ve done 55 grain 62 grain in 75 grain and as you
can see in the inset footage that I’ve put right here the results are wonderful
this is exactly what you’re looking for in a defensive or a hunting cartridge
this will work great for both first off the projectiles themselves tend to be very
precise and depending on how you’ve developed your hand load as it is in my
case then you can get very precise results accuracy wise so these right
here this is a six point five millimeter that I loaded up for 65 Creedmoor and
was putting through CMM geez excellent endeavour 300 that’s their big heavy
rifle it’s more of a prone rifle and we were getting point four MOA with these
guys and we’re gonna see what the terminal performance was like here in a
little bit that terminal performance as you know you saw in some of the the
footage here these projectiles when they strike yes they’re going to be accurate
yes they’re gonna be able to get on target and then when they hit they very
quickly open up into that star shape just a perfect star shape and they start
cutting a wide swath through the gel I think that’s exactly what we can expect
from the five-seven load that gold load I think that it’s going to you know
first off it’s gonna fly at that high speed and with that kind of semi exposed
lead tip it’s going to initiate expansion very quickly and we’re gonna
get a nice wide channel what I’m really curious about is to see at what
distances how it performs because that’s one of the things that we saw with the
the 55 grain 223 load within if we fired it a hundred yards which by the way
that’s my thing now a lot of ballistics gel tests are done at about 10 yards or
you know practically touching the gel and you’re not going to get realistic
results because as I showed with a 55 at a hundred yards you would get a pretty
different result then if you were back at 200 at 200 yards
the projectile has plenty of time to kind of slow down and has a lower B see it just
weighs less overall and when it hits it did expand wonderfully
but it didn’t open up as wide as some of the others so there’s a good you know a
good reason to go with maybe some of the heavier projectiles as you’re going to be
stepping back in distance I’m really curious to see how the Speer load is
gonna work at practical distances we’re gonna do some of the closer ones like
seven yards where you know most of most of our action is actually going to take
place and then stepping back a little bit I think at maximum 250 yards to see
how this performs and I’m really expecting good things to ensure that you
don’t miss these videos when they come out hit the subscription button down
there and the full notification bail down below it’s going to be a filled-in
bail and that will actually put a link to the video up in your browser area up
at the top when this comes out that’s probably your best chance to be able to
see when these are released YouTube doesn’t like distributing this content
so yeah that’s probably your best chance thank you to patrons of the destructive
arts that have made these videos possible we have stained and Mary and
the sportsmen guide at the 338 Lapua Magnum level we have Joseph Davis and we
have mr. no-name and we have Peter at the 300 Win Mag level and if anybody
else wants to chip in a buck or two a month to keep these videos coming I’ll
put a link to patreon I’ll see you guys around in the next video thanks for
watching if you liked this video be sure to like share and most importantly
subscribe even if you didn’t like this particular content go ahead and
subscribe there’s probably something coming that’s more up your alley check
out this playlist right here this is going to have videos in a similar vein
to what you just watched these two videos we cherry picked for you and
finally the social regressive is on patreon so you can become a patron of
the destructive arts and earn some goodies while helping us to provide high
quality videos just by kicking us a few bucks a month thanks a bunch for your
patronage

SAD SATAN – EL PELIGROSÍSIMO JUEGO REAL DE LA DEEP WEB (MISTERIO RESUELTO)


We can see in the minute 1.20 that you start to hear some sounds of a kind of boy or girl like screaming * sounds * (sub. by MegaMax) that sound first of all is that it is slowed down and has more bass tones, that is to say it has tones below Jordi wild or better known as the corner of giorgio one of the best known Spanish-speaking channels three days ago uploaded a video talking about a sad seitan videogame in the giorgio briefly explains what this videogame that supposedly came up of the deep web and that maybe the creator of that game I had mental problems the video the truth is that it captivated me a lot of curiosity and I said I will try to investigate more about this video game and see how real is this story because probably the question we have asked ourselves if we have seen the video or if we know said videogame is if the creator of this videogame really had mental problems or just did it on purpose Well, guys welcome once more to my channel and welcome to the analysis of sad seitan To begin with, we are going to make certain concepts clear in case there is any clueless who still does not understand these concepts the first thing that everything is deep web the deep web is so to speak the dark side of the internet is a very very internet side but that very large which with Normal browsers cannot access that is if you are looking for a domain that is a web page that is from the deep web with a normal search engine like google chrome mozilla firefox or something like that you won’t be able to access and normally said deep web is used to sell weapons to sell drugs to sell child pornography content to sell a lot of things illegal that obviously on the internet that everyone knows because you can not sell well supposedly Schatz Seitan is a video game that has emerged from the deepest corners from the deep web Satse tan is a game that does not lack an argument or a meaning, that is to say literally It lacks everything that a video game should have is a fairly dark game that practically only has two colors: white, black and its infinite grayscale would define it as a fairly gloomy game with very high contrasts and with very strange sounds in fact the game is absolutely sickly any normal person who starts playing that game or who sees a gameplay of this game is going to realize that it is not a normal game in fact it costs me to call it videogame because I do not see it as such This video game became famous thanks to a channel called obscure horror corner is a channel of a completely unknown person who was dedicated to upload the gameplays that is the only one he did was record the screen while playing the video game and then upload it without a voice without 2.0 without editing with nothing and obviously due to the strange and extravagant this game turned out to be sad seitan did not take long to go viral in all youtube I have not found the tweets of this youtuber but I stop playing it because supposedly he began to feel strange things in his house and all this happened at the end of 2015 I will not deceive you I discovered that this video game existed thanks to the fact that Giorgio uploaded the video three days ago as many of you will know, I sometimes entered the deep web and recorded videos and investigating things because of the deep web and I’ve been practically two whole nights looking for this video game on the deep web because obviously in it clearnet that is the internet superficial you can not download this video game and I promise that I have not found anything the video game cannot be downloaded at least the version cannot be downloaded original of this videogame yes it is true that found pages that tell you that this is the video game but the truth is that I don’t I was attracted in some confidence, so I didn’t download anything because it could get me into a host problem downloading any strange file with some kind of virus or something done on the internet superficially in reddit and they forced me into it but I have not found anything true about this video game it is apparently a game played by this man dark horror corner or so we know it but there really is no source where you can download this game is very and since I’m obviously not going to download the video game I had to analyze the videos that went up dark horror corner that is the parts and things more importantly I signed them in this freedom here I will explain briefly the way I have had to analyze This videogame is a videogame in which many rather strange sounds are heard and then these sounds and you put them in programs such as audacity you can determine if that sound belongs to a song or belongs to a trace of a file that has been uploaded to youtube or that has been uploaded to any platform and what I discovered I think you will like quite a bit at the beginning of part number one we can see in the minute 120 that you start to hear some sounds of a kind of boy or girl like screaming That sound first of all is that it is slowed down and has more serious tones that is to say it has all below if we increase it and accelerate it we simply hear a normal voice of someone talking, that is to say a recording of any site that sincerely I have not found the source but it has to be from anywhere and honestly nothing out of the ordinary nothing nothing strange Throughout this video until 730 minutes if they hear strange sounds’ but nothing out of the ordinary that catches my attention especially but in the 7th minute 30 you hear something very disturbing or a very very sound but very strange That sound was very simple to recognize the truth or not I No no no Ah Let’s see the song has a very strange name that is not pronounced so you have the name here in case you want to look for it in 10 10 minutes approximately It starts to be heard as a kind of quite strange noise as if someone were talking It sounded like the voice was upside down so what I did was take that mp3 file I put it back in sony vegas it was super super random I accelerated it and invested it Later render I made this little mp3 fragment and put it in audacity In other words, if you think about it, it has no mystery very shortly afterwards at the same minute in the 10 45 you see an image that the truth is that I have seen in many places When you search for schatz seitan on the internet it appears a lot of times this image and this dear friends simply by giving him google search we can find that it is a photo of a photographer called walter sanders and that belongs to a work of his from the second world war that is to say we meet again with something that neither it’s going out of the ordinary and up to here guys we get to the part analysis number one from my point of view for now only with part number one is that it is a game that the truth is that it’s very well done because what it’s trying to do is scare people to be scary that it’s gloomy belongs to a person who is mentally ill I don’t know what the following parts are going to bring me, I have no idea but what I said supports the video left a like if you want me to analyze the second part of this video and subscribe if you are not because that’s how you are aware of all this thank you very much guys for watching the video see you as always in the next one I remind you that I have my official social networks down here in which you can follow me to find out all the activity that I have and without much more than anything we see each other as always the next video a very strong kiss and bye

Job Creation Has Actually Gotten WORSE Under Trump


A new statistic came out recently that showed
that Barack Obama’s last three years in office created one and a half million more jobs than
Donald Trump’s first three years in office. 6.6 million jobs created during Trump’s first
three years, 8.1 million jobs created during Obama’s last three years. So this kind of blows a hole in Trump’s argument
that he rescued some kind of struggling economy and that he was the one who spurred job growth. Job growth was better under Obama than it
was under Trump. That’s just a simple fact. No politics behind it. That’s just the way things were. But the big question here, is what role does
the president specifically play in creating jobs here in the United States? Now you can look this information up and I’m
going to tell you right now, you’re really not going to find much that really justifies
that what the president does creates jobs, unless of course the president creates some
kind of new deal type jobs program. Short of that, the president of the United
States doesn’t have a whole hell of a lot to do with how many jobs are created in this
country. Sure, their policies can affect the stock
market and sometimes when the stock market goes up, companies do expand and hire more
people. But either that or creating a jobs program
than the president’s really just a figure head sitting there with no control over how
many jobs are here or not. So are we giving Obama too much credit? Are we giving Trump too much credit or are
we giving these men too little credit? I think the answer is that we’re giving them
too much credit. The presidents could do a lot to create jobs. The Green New Deal would absolutely bring
hundreds of thousands of jobs here to the United States. Good paying hardworking American jobs, but
they’re not doing that. Trump’s not doing that. He could, but he won’t. And if Trump wants to beat Obama on those
job creation numbers, man, you got to do something. Tweeting out how good the stock market is
isn’t creating jobs in this country. In fact, I’m willing to say that I don’t think
there is a single policy that Donald Trump himself has enacted that has caused American
jobs to be created. We’ve seen policies, he’s enacted cause significant
job loss. Right? The trade war, the tariffs. We’ve lost jobs in the steel industry. We’ve lost jobs in manufacturing, and we’ve
lost more farming jobs than we can count. Farming bankruptcy’s at an all time high since
the recession. So for more than 10 years, we didn’t have
bankruptcies this high among farmers. People are losing their jobs because of Trump’s
policies. They’re not creating jobs because of his policies. So yeah, the president can easily make people
lose their jobs a lot harder for a president to create a job. So I think in the grand scheme of things,
we are giving Obama too much credit. Trump shouldn’t be getting any credit. At least Obama did enact a stimulus package
that did give corporations money and they did create jobs with that. He should have given the money to the struggling
American workers, but he didn’t. That would’ve helped out a lot more. Would have increased spending power amongst
the American public, therefore creating jobs without having to bail out billion dollar
corporations who screwed the pooch. But ultimately, yes, you have to agree that
that did create some jobs. Obama did do more to create jobs than Donald
Trump, but neither of them have done what they need to do or should have done in order
to create real secure, sustainable American jobs.

The Economy Is Actually Trump’s Biggest Weakness


Donald Trump thinks that the economy is his
strongest point heading into the 2020 presidential election and as I’ve repeatedly said, on paper
the economy looks amazing. Right? Unemployment has reached lows that we didn’t
think were even possible anymore. In fact, we’re almost at statistical full
employment here in the United States and if you don’t dig past that number, man that looks
awesome. Right? The stock market’s doing great, which looks
great on paper as long as you don’t dig into it too far. Everything looks good, right? Except for one thing, for more than 80% of
people in this country, none of those indicators are reflecting how they are doing. Fewer than half of the people in this country
own stocks. More than 80% of the stocks owned in this
country are owned by the top 5% income earners. The rest of the people who own those stocks,
occasionally you have a, you know, lower income investor. The rest of them are just in retirement funds
that people really have no control over. So there’s rises in the stock market aren’t
effecting us, at least not today. And as for that full employment, well, you
also have to look at the fact that we have 40% of Americans working in jobs that do not
pay a living wage. 40% living paycheck to paycheck, another 40%
unable to afford an emergency of $400 or more, 40 million people in this country living in
poverty. And you have 140 million people in this country
considered to be poor. I have to read this, this paragraph here from
the Guardian because this tells us what the economy is really like for most people in
this country. Three individuals own as much wealth as all
of the bottom 140 million people combined. Three people own as much wealth as the bottom
140 American citizens. The real cost of living has soared while wages
have stagnated. Since the 1970s the number of people who are
paying more than a third of their monthly income and rent has doubled. And there is not a single County in the nation
where a person working full time at minimum wage can afford to rent a two bedroom apartment. 60% of African Americans are poor or low income
as are 64% of Hispanics. But the largest single racial group among
America’s poor and low income, 66 million Americans, are white. This needs to be, has to be, not even needs
to be folks, this has to be the talking point heading into the 2020 presidential election. The only thing Trump has the brag about is
how well the economy’s doing and that’s in spite of him, not because of him. But if we have a candidate that goes out there
and talks about the real numbers. That looks past the job creation numbers,
you know, we just came off a month January job creation, exceeded expectations. Now we’re likely going to see in a month or
two that we have to revise those numbers back because oops, they were overestimated because
that’s happened for the last 18 months. But still creating jobs. But as I said, as long as you don’t look behind
that, everything looks okay. But when you start to look at what kinds of
jobs were created, what are the wages of those jobs, what’s the skill levels of those jobs? And you’re going to find out that these are
jobs that don’t pay people a living wage or they’re temporary jobs or they’re, you know,
part time jobs But in the jobs report and that final jobs
number, that’s not reflected. It could be a job that’s only six months. It could be a job where you only get 15 hours
per week and that’s going to be counted with the same weight as a job where you work 40
hours a week making $100,000 a year. It’s not fair and that’s why we have to look
behind those statistics and we have to talk about those numbers. Bernie Sanders does that. Bernie Sanders and to a degree, Elizabeth
Warren, at least she used to, she’s changed quite a bit in the last month, but they go
out there and they see what’s really happening. They know that the stock market doing well
doesn’t reflect the prosperity of the middle class because their prosperity doesn’t exist. Their wages are not going up. They are not getting Trump’s tax cuts. They can’t afford their medication. They can’t even afford to get a new set of
tires for their car if they blow out, they can’t. I’ve been there, I’m still kind of on the
cusp of still being that way. You know, if I go out to my car this afternoon
and my, it doesn’t crank, my transmission blew, I’m screwed. If I blow a tire and have to replace it, I’m
okay but too many people are in that same boat. It’s paycheck to paycheck and maybe you have
$50 left in the bank by the time that next paycheck hits. It’s about what I have and I have no problem
opening up and being honest about that folks, because there’s millions upon millions of
people, the majority of people in this country who are in the same boat as me. And we understand that when Trump sends out
those tweets and tells us how great we’re doing, all we have to do is look at our paycheck,
look at our tax return, or look at our bank account to know that this isn’t true. And that’s what Democrats have to be pointing
out at every opportunity as we inch closer to November.

Your PensionBee Future World Plan Update – December ’19


Hi, I’m Nancy Kilpatrick from Legal and General,
and I’m here to provide you with an update on the Future World plan, which you’re invested
in. In Q4 last year, the plan performed well,
just eking out a positive return of around about 1%. Despite a bit of a wobble in November, what
we actually saw is 2019 finish up relatively encouraging, with US and China trade tensions
pretty much dissipating with the agreement of a Phase One deal. Of course, what we’ve had continually are
central banks being very happy to prop up global stock markets by cutting interest rates,
so in the US we saw an interest rate cut in October of 0.25% having already cut twice
the quarter before. So looking forward, there is no doubt that
risks remain. More recently, we’ve seen the outbreak of
coronavirus, which is now more serious than SARS. Whilst infection rates are increasing, we
have seen very little cases of this outside of China, and indeed whilst we do expect a
hit to growth within China in the first quarter of 2020, we expect little spillover to other
countries. So in the context of wider market returns
in other countries, what we’ve actually seen are some positive signs, particularly in the
US, where we’ve seen some positive activity data but also manufacturing data coming out
of US companies. So all in all, looking forward, we’d expect
a relatively positive environment next quarter. One of the key areas of focus for us last
year has been around equal pay. Earlier on in the year, we pushed for senior
executives to better align their pension fund contributions in percentage terms to that
of their workforce. We’re really pleased to say that that has
now meant that a third of FTSE 100 companies have reduced senior executive pension fund
contributions to better align with that of the wider workforce. This quarter, we publicly called for companies
to pay their staff a real living wage. So in an open letter combined with other investors,
we wrote to companies such as JD Sports, Royal Mail, and British Airways, asking them to
adopt the Living Wage in place of the National Minimum. So there’s no doubt that there’s quite some
difference between European oil and gas companies and US companies when it comes to their ambitions
when it comes to climate change. I think if we take the two US oil majors,
Chevron and Exxon, there are again quite some differences. Exxon particularly refused to disclose their
carbon emissions, and that is not just Scope One and Two but also Scope Three, and equally
refusing to set carbon emission targets at a firm-wide level. We’re really pleased to say that with our
work and continual engagement with Chevron, that company has done both of those things. Of course there’s no doubt that there’s much
more to be done within the sector and we continue our work around that. We’re very deliberate when it comes to the
Future World plan that the allocation of capital is based on real data. Companies need to prove out the fact that
they are making money from green activities before they get a larger investment within
the fund. And we hope, with a data-led approach, this
removes the element of subjectivity. Companies ultimately need to do what they
say they’re doing, and we need to see that prove out in hard numbers.

Does prayer actually change God’s mind?

February 23, 2020 | Articles, Blog | 60 Comments

Does prayer actually change God’s mind?


(music) – In thinking through
what the Bible teaches regarding the relationship
between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, a question often comes to the forefront of prayer. If God is really sovereign, and He has planned all things and knows all things before the foundation of
the world, then why pray? It seems as if prayer is either meaningless or doesn’t change anything. Some will then say well,
if He’s already planned all these things, then why
petition a sovereign God? Well this is a very,
very important question and it really is an
application of the larger divine sovereignty human
freedom relationship. As we work through Scripture, we have to very, very carefully put together all that Scripture
teaches, and on this issue, as we work on God’s sovereignty, God is presented from
Genesis to Revelation, as the God who is planned all things, created all things, rules over all things. You think of a Ephesians
1:11, a kind of overall summary statement, that God’s plan is that which encompasses all things,
the council of His will, and that includes then
our individual choices, and prayers, and actions,
and all that we do. Yet, at the same time, Scripture also says that we are God’s image bearers. We are free in the sense that we are held accountable for our actions. Our actions matter, our prayers matter, what we do matters, but many, many people see a tension in holding
these two together. Well, Scripture does
give us a tension here. It’s not contradictory,
Scripture will teach that God knows all things
and plans all things. That’s His sovereignty,
yet it will also say that our prayers are important. That our prayers are to petition God. I think of the parable that Jesus gives in Luke’s gospel about
the person who constantly is asking and He tells us
to ask over and over again. Well that’s part of
petition, so that Scripture will hold both of these together. Now, I think the best way
to think of the relationship of divine sovereignty to our prayers, and the importance of our prayers, is to think of our prayers
as God’s planned means. Our prayers are means to
bring about His planned ends. Their real means, and
sometimes we struggle with how can they be real means? But Scripture says they are. Our prayers are real, they’re important. In fact, they are planned
so that they, indeed, bring about those ends, and sometimes we can then use the reverse logic and say, well, what if I don’t bring about or don’t pray for certain
things, will I thwart God? Scripture says no, you won’t. We could even say He’ll raise up someone to pray and bring about that end. We can’t do that kind of reverse, yet we have to then say
God’s sovereign plan is brought about through our actions, through our prayers,
through our evangelism. That is how sovereignty
and freedom go together, and that’s how our prayers go together with divine sovereignty as well. When we think about petitionary prayer, we think about what we ask God. It’s very, very important to think about prayer in terms of how we are taught to pray according
to the Scriptures. You think of the Lord Jesus in John 17, that great high priestly prayer, where He petitions His Father, knowing that the hour is coming. And the hour in John’s gospel is God’s sovereigned, foreordained
plan of the cross. Yet He petitions His Father and says, “Lord and Father, the hour
is here, glorify your Son.” Well of course the Father’s
going to glorify His Son, but the Son prays in relationship to that very sovereign plan, the prayer functions as a larger means to an end. Or you think of in Daniel
9, where he’s reading, the prophet Jeremiah, and he knows that 70 years will be the exile. He doesn’t then say, well, that’s part of God’s sovereign plan, it’s
going to happen 70 years. I just might as well sit around and wait. Instead, knowing that very plan, he then takes that knowledge and
he turns it to prayer, in confession and petitioning that God would keep His promise, that
it would only last 70 years. Well of course it’s only
going to last 70 years. But he prays and petitions God in light of the very plan, the sovereign
plan, the eternal plan of God that he knows from
the prophet Jeremiah. You read the prayers of Paul and this is a very, very helpful for us. How does Paul pray for the churches? Ephesians 1 is a great example of this. Ephesians 1:15 and following, follows off the heels of Paul’s wonderful doxology of praise in verses 3 through 14. In the early portion of
Ephesians 1, he is praising the triune God for the work
of the Father and election, the work of the Son and redemption, the work of the Spirit in sealing all of Christ’s work to us, and giving us the guaranteed inheritance. All of that’s part of
God’s sovereign plan. And then he says, “For this reason,” because of God’s sovereign
election and redemption and salvation, he then
prays consistent with that very plan, that the God who has called you to adoption,
the God who has called you to know the riches that are
the inheritance in Christ. He prays then, “Lord, help
the church know those riches. “Help them to know that inheritance. “Help them to know that adoption.” So he prays in line with
God’s sovereign purposes. That’s how prayer functions in Scripture. It’s important, our choices are important, they’re part of God’s sovereign plan, means to ends, and prayer, we then take what God’s plan is, what He’s revealed, what we know of that plan,
and we turn that back to Him in petition, in praise, in
praying for one another. We pray specifically, we petition God according to His sovereign plan. So sovereignty and prayer
and petitionary prayer go hand-in-hand, never
let the two be separated. Scripture holds them together and we must hold them together in our
thinking and in our practice, in our daily lives, and in the church. (music)

Taylor Tomlinson: Quarter-Life Crisis | Netflix Standup Comedy Special | Trailer


I am halfway through my 20s, and I am done with this shit. Oh, my God, I’m sick of my 20s. You have no intuition,
no instincts. That’s why you’re thin
in your 20s. You don’t have a gut
to listen to yet. There’s no mystic, bad feeling
under your ribs going, “Hey, maybe don’t date a DJ, again!” So when I was younger,
and I was waiting, I would tell guys, “I’m not ready to have sex yet,
is that okay?” And anytime guys were
really cool about that decision, that just made me want
to have sex with them more. The hottest thing
you can say to a girl is, “Hey, we don’t
have to do anything.” Now we do. So I pretend I’m not ready
to have sex with someone new yet, just to make sure
they’re a good person first. I call it the Gobstopper test. I go, “Oh, I’m not ready,
is that okay?” He’s like, “Totally fine.
No worries at all.” And I’m like, “Charlie! You won!” I knew you could, my boy! Now come inside
my chocolate factory. It’s all for you!