Hey, it's Ernest from Trip Astute. In this video, we're doing a review of the Nodus
Compact Coin Wallet. A versatile wallet that's perfect for travelers and those
of you that carry a lot of credit cards.
(light chiming music)
First off, I want to thank Jerry P. for recommending that I check out this wallet.
As you all know, there aren't many quality minimalist wallets out there
that cater to the needs of us point collectors who usually carry multiple cards
in our daily lives in hopes of earning free travel. So when Jerry told me about
the Nodus Compact Coin Wallet, I was definitely intrigued. I reached out to
Nodus and they generously sent us a wallet to review and also another wallet
to give away to our audience. But before we get started, if you're new here,
welcome to our channel. Trip Astute is a travel channel that is focused on
sharing ways to make travel easier, affordable, and more enjoyable. Traveling
can be stressful and expensive, so we're looking for ways to help you maximize
your experience through travel tips, points and miles, and innovative gear. If
that sounds interesting to you, please consider subscribing. Nodus is a company
based in the UK that started in 2013. They wanted to create products that
improve the interaction and experience with items that we use most often. These
include things like wallets, phone cases, and even tablet cases. They're also known
for using extremely high quality Italian leathers. The leather is top grain,
vegetable-tanned, and ethically and sustainably produced
and sourced. High quality leather is not only more durable and desirable, but also
ages well, often developing a patina that is more beautiful than when it's
brand new. While Nodus sent us wallets to review, I
want to emphasize that this is not a paid review. We're not being influenced
to review these wallets in any way. As always, we want to ensure the integrity
of our channel and be able to share our honest opinions and thoughts. So, let's
jump into the highlights of the Nodus Compact Coin Wallet.
Number 1: Capacity for up to 17 cards. The wallet can accommodate up to 17
cards in the main center pocket. While I don't recommend carrying that many, it's
nice to have the flexibility when carrying credit cards in your wallet.
Also, I prefer this style of wallet since it allows me to rotate cards in and out
without worrying about stretching pockets, which is a common problem with
leather bifold and trifold wallets. Number 2: RFID protection. While RFID
isn't much of a threat here in the US, it seems to be a bigger concern outside
of the US with contactless payment cards. The wallet has RFID shielding built into
the main pocket so you can be assured that your card information is safe.
Number 3: Two external pockets. I think this feature is very useful. The
two external pockets do not have RFID protection which makes it perfect for
metro passes, office badges, and even hotel keys. Number 4: Internal
organization pockets. While the cards are meant to occupy the center, the wallet
has an expandable pocket on one side that can hold coins. Those of you in the
US may not care very much about coins, but they are a lot more common when
traveling, especially in Europe and in the UK. Also, you can use the pocket to
hold a few additional cards or small items. The other side has a shallow
pocket for your cash. Keep in mind, it's like other minimalist wallets. You'll need
to fold your notes into thirds in order for it to fit in the wallet. This isn't
an issue for me at all since I use cash less and less every day. But if you
happen to use cash often in your daily life, you may want to find a wallet that
allows you to bi-fold your cash instead. Lastly, the cash pocket has a slot for a
key. I love this feature. Even if you generally carry your keys in your pocket,
it's nice having a place to put a spare key like a bike lock or mailbox key or
even a room key when traveling. I've only seen a few wallets with this feature,
so it's nice seeing it in this wallet. Number 5: High quality leather. I know we
already covered that Nodus uses vegetable-tanned Italian leather, but I
have to say that the leather does feel and look very premium. It has a bit of
texture which gives it a more luxury feel than other wallets. This wallet will
definitely age well and will likely even look nicer as it develops its patina.
Number 6: Compact size. Though it's probably obvious, the wallet is perfect for
front pocket carry. It measures 2.7 inches tall and 4 inches wide. The
thickness will depend on how much you put into the wallet. Number 7: Packaging
and branding: Lastly, the packaging used by Nodus is very impressive. The wallet
arrived in a micro fiber pouch inside of a nicely decorated
cardboard box. Nodus' brand symbol is an octopus and the branding is discreetly
marked on the wallet. It looks like it was stamped or iron branded into the
leather, which is a nice touch. In terms of things I wish it had or were different, I
think the only thing I wish it had were more robust zippers. I would love to see
Nodus add water-resistant or locking zippers to their wallets. It's definitely
not a deal breaker, but more of a wishlist item for me. This wallet is
available off the Nodus website for £60, which is about $75 to $80.
That may seem expensive, but keep in mind the quality of the leather
and craftsmanship. The company offers a generous five-year warranty on their
products which shows that they stand by their customers. Also, Nodus offers free
worldwide shipping on orders over £30. I'll include a link in the video
description below. In summary, I think the Compact Coin Wallet is a great choice
for those of you looking for a daily or travel wallet. It has the capacity to
hold a lot of cards which is very useful for those of you in the credit card
points hobby. The wallet is similar to other minimalist wallets that we've
reviewed, but it does have some unique features that sets it apart from others.
After trying got this wallet, I'm actually excited to learn more about
Nodus and even check out some of their other products. Lastly, we're going to do a
review of their Compact Card Wallet soon, which is more of a traditional
minimalist wallet. While this sort of wallet tends to be too small for me in
my daily life, I do generally carry a lot less with me when I'm actually traveling.
For me, it's usually cash, one credit card, a debit card, a copy of my passport, and
an ID. So I'm looking forward to trying the wallet out and seeing how it fits
into my travel routine. Finally, Nodus would like to give away one of their
Compact Coin Wallets to our audience. As always, you'll need to visit our website
and enter using the contest link. I've included a link in the video description.
You don't have to purchase anything and there's multiple ways to enter and gain
entries. All you have to do is click on any or all the options to enter. The more
options you complete, the more entries you'll earn. And of course, there's no
pressure to enter. The contest runs until Friday, November 9th. and we'll randomly
select one lucky winner on November 10th. Nodus will then ship out the prize to the
winner. Also, the giveaway is open to everyone, not just US
residents. What are your thoughts on the Nodus Compact Coin Wallet? Let us know
in the comment section below. If you enjoyed this video or found it useful,
please give us a thumbs up and consider sharing our video with others who might
benefit or enjoy our content. Until next time, travel safe
and travel smart.
For more infomation >> Nodus Compact Coin Wallet (+ GIVEAWAY) | Ideal Minimalist Wallet Perfect for Card & Coin Carry - Duration: 6:54.-------------------------------------------
HD Эффекты для монтажа видео Снежинки Proshow Producer - Duration: 2:46.
Snowflakes Footages
-------------------------------------------
Fires at S. Division Ave. businesses deemed suspicious - Duration: 1:48.
For more infomation >> Fires at S. Division Ave. businesses deemed suspicious - Duration: 1:48. -------------------------------------------
Ford S-Max 1.6 EcoBoost Titanium 7p. Navigatie / Half leder / Cruise control / Xenon / Trekhaak / 18 - Duration: 0:54.
For more infomation >> Ford S-Max 1.6 EcoBoost Titanium 7p. Navigatie / Half leder / Cruise control / Xenon / Trekhaak / 18 - Duration: 0:54. -------------------------------------------
Ofelia Esparza Altar Maker in Becoming Los Angeles Exhibit - Duration: 0:16.
For more infomation >> Ofelia Esparza Altar Maker in Becoming Los Angeles Exhibit - Duration: 0:16. -------------------------------------------
Playing the Best GIRLS ONLY Games as a Guy - Duration: 9:39.
Hey there Hoodie here and welcome. You read the title, right? Okay
Well, um, there's gonna be weird before anyone mentions it you can play any game you want. I'm just playing games targeted towards girls
I don't know. I thought it would be fun
The game will continue after a short ad
You just should be you literally just showed me a name princess BFF weekend getaway
Okay, this is the pinnacle of gaming right here. Let's see choose a princess
Elsa obviously, come on, okay
Another short net. Okay, um, is it just dress up dude watch hold up?
Hold up a second watch an ad to unlock this item. I've been shown four ads within a minute
I'm starting to wonder if these games are purely just made to advertise to little girl because if so, that's actually sick
I can't believe you just use kids like that another
Another ad I'm over here trying to get my nails done and they're just trying to advertise to me
Oh, no, no bring that back. I was enjoying that. Okay, well
Galaxy nails hell, yeah was Lauren's Eastside my nails up all the way cool. Alright where he eats?
Okay, cool other hand, um, you know other hand we're gonna do a different design. We're gonna do whatever this is
I think Elsa was good enough. That was the whole game. That was a lip. That was the whole game. Okay
Noel is real dentist, let's do this
Let's grab a cup of water cuz that's what you do with the dentist. You just drink water. Oh, no
I don't like those sounds at all. Okay, let's brush our teeth
Yeah, we should have done this before we came to the dentist, but you know
That's all good grab another cup and then spit it out, but I don't want to hear it. Just nope
Nope. There you go. Perfect. Alright well done on to the next stage
We're doing good. Another ad is the child to preteen demographic of young girls
Really that hard to advertise to I don't okay. Well, let's look it so why are you crying? I didn't do anything
I'm looking at your tooth
Why the tears drink some water?
Like we'll fix you up. Oh no
Okay, good, great, let's just drill your teeth
I guess put that suction and your crying but we didn't do anything like literally. Oh
I feel that. Hello. Who is this? Hi. Oh
That's cute. How do you get in though? I didn't know I don't think you're allowed past a certain point, right?
Okay, let's just drill some more teeth that I feel it. I literally feel it in my jaw. That's weird
That's very very weird. Okay do it again
This gaming it sounds I like it. Alright, let's like smear your tooth I suppose
That's it let me guess you're gonna show me it another ad
Literally another ad young girls. I am so sorry that you have to be advertised to on a like mini basis
Literally, I think these games word is made for ads honestly. Okay, Ellie get ready with me
I've never done any sort of makeup in my life. This will be very interesting. Maybe I'll learn a thing. You too
Hi and welcome a vlog channel who we this I always get asked
How do I look so fab after I wake up always fat way? Come on, you were beautiful inside and out
So today I will invite you to get ready with me and discover my secrets Wow
Why are you advertising to me? First thing after I wake up is refreshing and moisturizing my skin. I don't do any of that
I should I really should try skin all over it's terrible. It's actually the worst are we good? We're good
No, I just got to rub it off. I guess I just must use water or are we just like putting suds on it?
That's it. Okay now I will highlight my features with makeup. Okay, I should probably use this
Look at this highlight my features what features am I highlighting? Okay. Nobody wants to see more
What do we got? We got a blend if this is what we're doing. We're blending here. I got it
But yeah, I'm a natural pencil. What am I vote? Oh
Those are big I wouldn't have done them that big girl God. Okay, that's fine
You know a personal style totally find it and they're perfect. Yeah. Wait, hold up. Hold up a second
I just remember these games are targeted towards the little girls like very little
What age do you start putting on makeup? Well, we know the comments down below cuz it looked like
legitimately
90% of my audience is female. I have no idea with this kay. Let me know
I I'm interested now my hair is looking a bit messy. So I will tame it a bit. Okay? Yes
So this is a straightener right? And you just grab the hair and you drag it. That's yeah, that seems pretty straightforward
I probably burned myself. But hey, you know that was it. Okay, it's strange finally
I have to choose the outfit of my day of the day. This is my favorite part
Okay, I just literally grab whatever out of the closet and that's it that sure that looks nice sweater weather
hell yeah, uh
Regular jeans, I think it looks fine to me. And is that that's literally it? That's the whole game. This is so short
Okay beauty potion. This looks like a very thrilling game
I mean to this will your potion have the power to turn this hag into a beautiful princess?
Drag three ingredients into the cauldron and hit mix to see what happens. Okay?
Well, I mean you're giving me the you're literally showing me what to do drag that. Oh, it's got a shoe in there. Yeah
Yeah, I can't drag the shoe. You're telling me all the items. Hang tight
Am I even playing or I might as clicking-and-dragging mysterious princess?
Although she hides behind a mask of shyness this princess secretly yearns for the princes attention
Okay, and then let's put in an illicit herb
Let's put in a crown and an alarm clock. What do we get here mix that all together
beautiful
Confident princess always the cool girl. This princess has a strong. Will it always says what's on her mind? Perfect. There you go. Okay
what about
crown herb
Butterfly. What a me? No, no, no. No. Okay. She'll Apple mask. What do we get with this?
This is a strange game
Would it be brainy princess this princess is smart and serious. She knows what she wants and how to get it. Okay, um
necklace
mushroom and
Whatever this is
bottle
Yeah
beautiful princess know like
Lovestruck princess this pretty princess gets her glow from the power of passion
She's always in love me too. College girl quiz, which key do you think is the coolest? Uh, this one? Which foot
Okay, I don't even find out if I'm right or wrong
Which one do I think is the coolest so it's like a cool test this one
it
Results a bachelor in business
And I dropped out of college for this
I dropped out of college so that way I could find out I am a bachelor in business. I should be taking about two
We're in business from girl go games. Why did I ever listen to my counsel? I should have literally just done this
So many eggs and I'm being advertised things I don't even want to see the shoe quiz
Okay start my quiz, what's your favorite haircut? I like that one. Where would you like to sit a beanbag chair?
What would you like to wear some jeans?
What wallpaper is worthy of your room none?
Platinum black wallpaper, that's perfect. Yeah. Um, okay the lines which is the yummiest fries
How do you spend your spare time? We're I'm not sleeping. Where's the sleeping one? Okay movies favorite season autumn
best reading material
Book and then where can you be spotted when school's out?
Where's the bed? I'm literally just sleeping Viking sure which animal is so you
The duck. Okay. What shoe what shoe do I get what is my what is my dream shoe the organic green wedge?
superior in every way shape and form
These organically made wooden wedges are naturally beautiful. Just like you too cool for school. You can wear them without feeling guilty
I got my shoe. I got my makeup. I've learned a lot
What else can I do?
It's like another egg. You literally just showed me an ad back-to-back. Thrill rush 3, okay
well, there's oh my god, there's
Microtransactions in this game how okay I didn't play the first two am I gonna understand the story?
Understand the plot of this game. Oh
My god its final destiny. Okay
Get low whoa. Okay, this is
Like
This is so intense
Like okay, I'm enjoying this. You got Wow
Wow
Well, I'm missing cash though. I don't want to I don't want to buy it with my own money. What's going on?
It's like it don't move challenge. I
Don't my way
Okay ladies
I am
Sorry for what you have to endure with these with these random games right when I was a little I played a lot of games
On like addicting games and stuff unlike, you know kitten caning and stuff, but it was never advertised that heavily
Anyways, thank you so much. Watch guys gals. Take you so much for all support
Be sure to leave a like subscribe do whatever you want to do
I'm not your dad, but go take it easy going Jade a girl acts and I'll see tune every one of you
Later, take it easy guys. A gal is later
-------------------------------------------
Schnellbus juchhe, Feinstaub ade! | Zur Sache Baden-Württemberg! - Duration: 4:16.
For more infomation >> Schnellbus juchhe, Feinstaub ade! | Zur Sache Baden-Württemberg! - Duration: 4:16. -------------------------------------------
Just How Much Does The Crane Bend? Elasticity Test at the Arcade, Toreba Spectating - Duration: 4:17.
[Videogame music]
[music throughout, no speech]
-------------------------------------------
EL NEGOCIO más lucrativo DEL MUNDO - Duration: 8:08.
Hello, exotics!
How you doin'?
Today we'll make a new video,
in which we'll talk about
the Liberty Walk of A21.
In this video we'll see more about A21 and how we can participate.
Ready?
Let's go!
Before we begin, let me tell you how did this A21 campaign start,
How they exist in more than 50 countries.
The story is like that: a lady is in an airport from Greece
and saw many posters with kidnapped girls,
after they got her attention, she saw a poster about a girl named Sofia
just because, also her daughter is called Sofia, she started thinking
"this could be my disappeared daughter"
From that moment, she decided to investigate,
but she was thinking that slavery doesn't exist, because there are
constitutional acts, in which slavery is put to an end.
When, in fact, the modern slavery, has just started.
When she started to investigate, she realized that it exists,
and she has something to do with it, she opened the first
A21 office in Greece.
And, so, they started saving girls from slavery, till now
they have 13 houses from different countries, where girls or boys can live,
which were sexually abused or laboral.
For this reason, we, today will participate at this liberty march,
for those that today can't speak, we'll do, but in silence.
The modern slavery is an organized crime with the biggest
rise from the world and which gain more than
126 billion $ per year.
This Liberty March, is made, also in countries like:
USA, UK, Greece, Thailand, and many more.
And actually 3 years ago I participated at this walk
I knew what they were talking about, with every step to get rid of slavery,
but I didn't know that this organization started.
That's why I make this video, so I'll let you know
how it started and why.
Into this year's march I'll
walk in silence, but we'll need some earphones because
we'll listen to an audio, which we'll surely be about
the A21 organization, where they will tell us more things.
So, let's be ready to do steps into destroying the slavery forever.
And after we'll get that walk done, which starts at
Revolution's Monument which right behind my back
right to the Angel of Independence, when we arrive
I'll tell you more things, and about the audio which I'll listen.
We arrived at the Angel of Independence,
the director of A21 Mexico, had a speech, and a little later
the director of A21 Mexico, will be with us into this video.
I have some questions for here, so we'll know more about A21.
And yes, today we really made history, with every step which we made.
We'll also see the methods used by A21 when they save a life.
We're already with the director of A21 Mexico, where I'll
ask her some questions about A21.
The first question is
What things are the hardest for you when you represent A21?
Wow, one of the challenges which I have, including the team of A21,
is the education.
Many persons tell me that they do not know this things, which happened to my colleague,
my friend, or what I saw on the street was an act of slavery.
I was thinking that they are there, just because they want to, not because they were forced.
Then, when we get into schools or a walk like this one
people can understand what slavery means.
This is our challenge: culture,
and education, because people don't know what happens in our schools,
at work, even on the street.
It's a challenge, but it's the most beautiful challenge.
The next question is:
What attracted you to represent A21 Mexico?
My heart, it always was towards people
I always wanted to do this, and right from where I found that
in my country there is slavery, I couldn't stay away.
I was feeling that I had to do something, so I can change the world
something right from my heart was telling me "you have to do it".
We had to go from the Angel of Independence because
there will be a manifestation.
Let's go with the last question which is:
As we know that you have a wonderful little girl, this influenced your decision,
of being the director of A21 Mexico?
Children do influence the decisions which you make.
My daughter, or a child from another family to be kidnapped.
It moves my heart.
My daughter is a very important factor,
in the decisions which I make, and a reason for doing what I do.
Thanks a lot Angie!
Thank you for being with us in this march.
Here was the director from A21, this way, we can know more about A21
and actually the audio which I listened to was right about
A21, how they started and what they achieved till now.
And actually the way in which all the survivors pass in the modern slavery
when they arrived at the A21 houses are:
arriving at the needing person,
saving and restoring
so they can reintegrate in society.
This was the video, thanks for watching
and see you in the next video.
In any case you want to donate or to help this cause A21,
I'll give you the link in the description below.
Ceau!
-------------------------------------------
Výměna manželek: Potetovaná Marie šílí z nepořádku, plísní a zanedbané domácnosti! - Duration: 2:35.
For more infomation >> Výměna manželek: Potetovaná Marie šílí z nepořádku, plísní a zanedbané domácnosti! - Duration: 2:35. -------------------------------------------
[basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어 공부 ♥Leçon 1♥ alphabet coréen - consonnes et - ㅌ 티읕 tieut (tʰ- / -t̚) - Duration: 0:31.
For more infomation >> [basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어 공부 ♥Leçon 1♥ alphabet coréen - consonnes et - ㅌ 티읕 tieut (tʰ- / -t̚) - Duration: 0:31. -------------------------------------------
[basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어공부 ♥Leçon1♥ alphabet coréen - consonnes et-ㄸ 쌍디귿 ssangdigeut(tʼ-/-t̚) - Duration: 0:31.
For more infomation >> [basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어공부 ♥Leçon1♥ alphabet coréen - consonnes et-ㄸ 쌍디귿 ssangdigeut(tʼ-/-t̚) - Duration: 0:31. -------------------------------------------
[basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어공부 ♥Leçon1♥alphabet coréen - consonnes et ㄲ 쌍기역 ssanggiyeok (kʼ-/-k̚) - Duration: 0:31.
For more infomation >> [basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어공부 ♥Leçon1♥alphabet coréen - consonnes et ㄲ 쌍기역 ssanggiyeok (kʼ-/-k̚) - Duration: 0:31. -------------------------------------------
[basique] ★ étudier le coréen 한국어 공부 ♥Leçon 1 ♥ alphabet coréen - consonnes et - ㅎ 히읗 hieut (h-) - Duration: 0:31.
For more infomation >> [basique] ★ étudier le coréen 한국어 공부 ♥Leçon 1 ♥ alphabet coréen - consonnes et - ㅎ 히읗 hieut (h-) - Duration: 0:31. -------------------------------------------
The greatest beer run in the history of beer | Drink Like a Sailor - Duration: 4:54.
(scatting)
♪ Drink like a sailor ♪
That's it, that's all I got.
This is good b, ah (beeping).
Oh, hello.
I'm here to talk to you today about World War II,
British pilots, in fact, and the logistics operators
behind those pilots had a lot of work cut out for them.
So obviously, World War II,
there's a lot of fighting going on,
they need guns, they need bombs,
they need all that (beeping), but they also need beer,
right, so they had this whole big donation of beer
from the local brewery,
and they needed to get that beer to the troops somehow.
You need to put the bombs and the guns and everything,
all the stuff that matters in war onto the planes,
but how do you get the beer to the guys on the ground?
Well, one of these Brits had the ingenious idea
to fill their fuel tanks up with beer,
slap it on the jet, and bring it to the guys on the ground.
(can popping)
Sound crazy?
Tell that to Britain's Royal Air Force,
'cause they actually pulled it off,
and just so crazy that I'm gonna use that story,
that true story as inspiration for the cocktail for today,
that I call The Royal Flyer.
(upbeat music)
Let's do it.
Of course, we're gonna use some nice American IPA,
'cause we like to America-fy our drinks here a little bit,
American IPA, and some good old Tennessee moonshine,
because you know there was some residue left over
in those tanks, so you got that beer/fuel mixture,
you know what I'm saying?
Give you a little extra fighting spirit.
Tennessee moonshine, baby, flook.
Oh, and grapefruit.
♪ Tell me why ♪
Because grapefruits goes with IPAs great.
You know, sometimes they actually put grapefruit
into the IPA flavor, so the flavor profile
is gonna be bananas.
I mean, grapefruit.
Let's make this drink.
So first, we're gonna shake the moonshine, aka, fuel,
with our grapefruit juice.
Holy (beeping).
(whining)
Yeah, that's about right.
(liquid splashing) Toop.
And then I'll get our little wedge of grapefruit here.
(grunting)
Let's move on to using my hands now.
(whirling electronic music)
That's about right.
All right, so we're gonna shake up the moonshine,
aka fuel, and grapefruit juice with some ice.
Ooh. (ice clinking)
(metallic smashing)
And then shake it up.
(ice rattling) (machine gun blasting)
Then we're gonna strain this out,
'cause beer cocktails never have ice in them.
(drink trickling)
Look how beautiful that is.
Looks like victory to me.
Half your high octane mixture
and then half some good old American IPA.
Whoo, yeah, that's some professional,
you got that professional drip,
go ahead and pour it in.
(electronics whirring to life)
That's pro, no head, no head.
Let's try it.
(upbeat music)
Ooh.
(laughing)
I did not, got, my brain didn't do anything.
It's the strongest drink I've ever had.
That is good, but I'm pretty sure that's illegal
in 48 states.
Let's try this again.
Here, I'm gonna actually, I'm gonna lower,
I'm gonna lower it down on Ole Smoky, on the moonshine.
The ratio I'd probably like to hit is one to six,
one part moonshine, six parts beer.
Let's do this again.
(upbeat music)
Ah, one shot of moonshine,
then let's get two times that amount in grapeshoot juice.
I've had a couple of hits of the moonshine.
I'm starting to feel it in my brain.
Squeeze, let's shake with some ice.
- [Man] Cool.
(ice rattling)
- Let's strain it through.
(electronics whirring to life)
Whoop, and then the rest of this,
this is gonna be mostly beer, get it all mixed up.
(upbeat music)
The fizz means it's working.
Give it a second.
Ah, for the queen. (laughing)
I think the other one's better.
All right, well, come back to us next week,
where I'll be double fisting once again
with two glasses of moonshine cocktails,
and we're gonna be making some more military cocktails.
Drop us a comment, let us know what kind
of military stories you have,
that you want us to make some military cocktails for,
and if you have any military cocktails up your sleeve,
I'd love to hear about them.
Maybe we'll make them up and do them.
Maybe we'll make them up right here.
Man, moonshine'll get you drunk.
Buy my shirt, it'll get you drunk.
No, for real, if you buy this shirt,
we'll send you a bottle of moonshine for free.
Actually, no.
But if you do buy this shirt and wear it,
you will get drunk,
'cause you'll probably go out to the bar
and drink that night.
(upbeat music)
I gotta stop drinking that.
(upbeat music)
- Can I have one of these?
- Please.
We've got a box full of liquor here, everybody.
- [Woman] Just open them up.
- [Man] I'm happy to take the rum home.
(can popping)
- [Man] Guys if, uh-- (can fizzling)
- Oh my God.
What the (beeping)
How did that happen?
- [Man] I don't know.
I just opened it.
-------------------------------------------
Meinen Rekord unterbieten! :D - New Super Mario Bros.U Speedrun (4) - Duration: 1:25:16.
For more infomation >> Meinen Rekord unterbieten! :D - New Super Mario Bros.U Speedrun (4) - Duration: 1:25:16. -------------------------------------------
Luffy Attacks Kaido - One Piece Chapter 922 Review - Duration: 6:09.
So, this arc did end faster than we expected!
Oda likes to make long arcs but for this arc, he did decide to cut it short.
Too bad for Kaido, but he did learn his lesson, you don't drink and fly in the sky, because
you can crash with a monkey.
And now Kaido went to sleep.
Or is he?!
If Kaido is not sleeping then we should start looking for a new character to replace Luffy.
Rest in Peace Luffy.
It was a great journey.
I think the guy who should replace Luffy is Gintoki, he has proven multiple times that
he can play this role.
There is another guy who can play this role, I am talking about Saitama but I don't think
that he would be a good idea.
Because then the One Piece story will end very soon, probably in only 12 chapters or
2 billion episodes.
If you are thinking right now, hold on how can 12 chapters be used to make 2 billion
episodes?!
Well, that's how Toe Animation does math.
Anyway, now let's get to the serious stuff that did happen in this chapter.
Law's coat looks great, maybe this is the best coat I have ever seen in One Piece.
Anyway, usually in One Piece whatever happens on the last page of the chapter, it does not
continue in the next chapter.
So, I was not expected Kaido in this chapter and I am very glad that Oda did change the
formula.
When I read the first panel Law said Kaido is a dragon, and I thought is this the reason
why people don't call him a human.
But in the next panel Kinemon does explain and says Kaido can transform into a dragon,
so he is a human.
Guess who else transformed into a dragon?
The one and only Momonosuke.
Can you imagine a battle between him and Kaido in their dragon forms?
But if Kaido would see him, he would not kill Momonosuke, Kaido would ask him to join his
crew.
And Law says to everyone there that him, Luffy and Zoro were exposed and Kaido is after them.
When I first read that I was confused, did I missed something, why Law is saying this
as if this is news?
Everyone in the world knows that Law and Luffy took down Doflamingo and that's why they
got new bounties.
And we saw Kaido looking at the bounties of Luffy and Law and getting angry.
But I guess this was just a reminder for the people who forgot and also due to the Straw
Hats being so thick.
The best part of this scene was when Sanji said to Law:" What the hell did you do Law?"
Good thing that Law is a patient man because Sanji did deserve to be punched.
And after hearing all of this Luffy said hey how can we be more discreet so no one will
find out that we are here?
But while you guys are thinking about this I am just going to go and punch Kaido I will
be back soon.
Now just remember what Sanji said to Law!
Law is more likely to die from a heart attack than a Yonko.
Anyway, Kaido is hovering above the town and he is terrorizing the people there.
Even Shutemaru wants to run away.
I don't know why but when I am reading the lines of Kaido in a dragon form, in my head
I am hearing the voice of Smaug.
Benedict did a great job voicing a dragon.
One of the things that I did notice about the Yonkos is that they all ask other people
to join their crews even if that person did fight against them!
So, no wonder that they did manage to become Yonkos, because they have more people than
the others.
It was weird to see that scene between Jack The Bandage and Kaido.
It seems like a relationship between a parent and a child.
Jack: are you drunk?
Kaido: No, I am not drunk.
Why Kaido is trying to hide that he is drinking?
Is he afraid that he will lose his sponsors?!
Law went with Luffy to stop him from doing something crazy but it did not work.
Because Luffy's thickness is greater than Law's wisdom.
When he did ask Law will the people of the town be all right.
Law said: You fool, think about the current situation.
It is because you wanted to do something good.
It would be great if Law would appear in every scene where someone says or does something
stupid.
On the other side of the page, Kinemon is running as well towards the town.
This was surprising, I think this is the first time I saw Kinemon doing something that a
samurai would do.
He is running towards the danger to protect people.
But good thing that Hawkins was there and he did save the people of the town by saying
to Kaido, Luffy and Law are at the ruins of Oden castle.
If you are thinking well, that was very cruel of him, Hawkins did not think twice before
sending death towards the Straw Hats.
Well, that's not true, it is not that he does not care, but it is writing on his cards
that the main characters do not die.
So, he did choose the safe option.
That panel where Luffy is running towards the town and Kaido is flying in the opposite
direction was epic.
This is my favorite panel in this chapter.
There are huge differences between these two characters but their paths are converging,
in one way or another.
And then Oda did reveal another power of Kaido, two in two chapters.
So, he can produce this hot energy and shot it from his mouth.
The destructive power is huge.
When I saw that, it did remind me of Whitebeard, he could have blocked that attack with no
problem.
I really wish we will see a flashback about Kaido fighting Whitebeard.
The strongest creature vs the strongest man.
And then Luffy jumps higher than Kaido and hits him on the head.
That panel where that kid did see Luffy above Kaido is very interesting, I really like it.
Everyone, there will be shocked that there is someone who is not afraid of Kaido.
But I don't think that attack did do anything, Luffy was not even using one of his gears.
When Luffy hit him, Kaido looks like he is smiling but on the last panel he seems like
he is not conscious, his eyes are all white.
Maybe he did pass out from all the alcohol that he did drink.
About the Straw Hats that were at the Oden Castel I think is very likely that Law did
use his power and did get them out of there.
Anyway, what did you guys think about this chapter?
Let me know in the comments Thanks for watching
Like and share if you like this video Subscribe for more One Piece Videos
And see you in the next video
-------------------------------------------
The Many Faces of Liberalism: Liberalism vs. Democracy? - Duration: 1:12:20.
- My name's Jim Miller, I'm the co-organizer
of this sequence of conferences with Helena Rosenblatt.
This conference has focused on the many faces of liberalism.
In February of next year at The New School
there will be a two-day event that will focus
on democracy and liberalism.
And very much add in
a sharper focus on democracy in itself and its history,
and in its complicated, I believe,
relationships with liberalism.
Our panel this evening is really the one panel
that joins the two conferences together.
And I thought it would be,
before really turning to the panelists,
I wanted to say something about the premises
of our conferences, and because they're
conveyed elliptically in the title of this panel, which says
Liberalism versus Democracy.
The question mark was added later
to soften my original title.
Helena and I discovered we were writing
at roughly the same time, books on parallel topics,
and were taking a broadly similar methodological approach.
And to put it very simply, we had both been touched
in different ways by the methodological work
of Quentin Skinner, as an intellectual historian,
and specifically a historian of political thought,
who emphasizes from a Wittgensteinian background
to take very seriously the words that are actually used
and the concepts as they're deployed
in discursive practices
in different historical times and places.
Rather than to assume that if you see the same word
at different times and places that it means the same thing,
and also as an heuristic to warn against applying,
retrospectively, terms that we use today onto previous
times and places and what their beliefs and practices were.
And as a result of taking that approach, both Helena and I,
to start with quite independently,
had ended up coming to the conclusion that there is
a broad, particularly in the world
of general ordinary discourse,
a tendency to conflate liberalism and democracy
in the United States that has been pretty deeply entrenched
in most of my lifetime, actually.
It was deeply entrenched in the political science
I was taught, I majored in political science
as an undergraduate, and it seemed to both of us
that it was a mistake historically,
but by separating out the differences
it might lead to an interesting conversation about how
these categories and concepts ought to be articulated.
Particularly if you can show historically that they've often
stood in tension, and I'm going to suggest, contradiction.
I want to put my cards on the table,
Helena did this earlier today.
I'm just gonna read five paragraphs
about liberalism and its relationship to democracy.
Liberalism's a relatively late addition
to our political lexicon, as Helena has explained.
What I want to add to what she said this morning,
and this is quite unlike democracy, which goes back
to the ancient Greeks, liberalism in the United States
was actually only introduced as a key word and term of art,
during the time of Woodrow Wilson,
and around people connected to the journal the New Republic
and even the founders of my university, the New School.
They meant it as a distinguishing label
for people who had been Teddy Roosevelt Progressives
who became Wilson Democrats,
and in contra-distinction to socialists
who pursued a revolutionary program.
And they saw themselves as pragmatic social democrats
in the model of say the Fabians in England.
So here's what I want to emphasize
about the differences between democracy.
Democracy when it first appeared in ancient Greece,
it had almost nothing to do with what we think of liberalism
in any of the possible definitions we've discussed today.
Nothing.
It presupposed shared norms, a shared religion horizon,
a shared projection of egalitarian ideals.
It revolved around periodic public assemblies
in which all citizens met as one,
and had as its characteristic procedure the random selection
of citizens to fill almost all the key offices
of justice, administration, and government.
As Socrates discovered at his trial for impiety
and corrupting the youth in 399 B.C.,
the ordinary citizens of ancient Athens
had little patience for nonconformists
or what Bill Galston was calling individualists.
Their collective freedom to wield their power
was perfectly compatible with the complete
subjection of the individual to the community.
And perhaps most importantly for our purposes today,
Athens was an exclusionary nativist community.
Only people who had both parents
who had been born in Athens could become citizens.
It is the most exclusionary nativist form of rule
that you can possibly imagine.
And you could make an argument that
the exclusions of Athenian democracy,
including women and slaves and all foreigners,
from participation, was what made
the robust directness of Athenian democracy possible.
But whatever it was, it was not liberal
in any sense that I recognize.
Moreover, modern democracy, which I think revolves around
a certainty conception of popular sovereignty that was
utterly alien to the thinking of the ancient Greeks,
and was most powerfully expressed as a democratic category
in Rousseau's political thought,
in his concept of the general will,
also has no necessary connection to liberalism.
This was shown in the course of the French Revolution.
But even the first Protestant champions
of the idea of popular sovereignty in the 16th century
summoned the power of the people for the express purpose
of dethroning rulers with whose
religious views they disagreed.
As Edmund S. Morgan put it, it was not religious liberty
they sought, but the elimination of wrong religions.
Liberalism, I believe, as Bill Galston has said,
profoundly grows out of a modus vivendi
to stop the slaughter that in part was being generated
by early Protestant conceptions of popular sovereignty.
That's all I wanted to say in terms of putting
my cards on the table,
but I wanted to then acknowledge
that there are many different ways to approach
the relationships between liberalism and democracy,
and in our conferences we've tried to be
as open and pluralistic as possible.
And in that spirit I wanted to explain the order in which
people will speak, for those of you who haven't been
at previous sessions, people will speak
for about five minutes and then we'll have
conversation among the panelists.
I'm not gonna give big introductions.
All of you have a program which lists
all the accomplishments of the various speakers.
I want to start with James Kloppenberg because he's written
a magisterial work called Toward Democracy
which is notably
different in its emphasis and approach
to telling the story of democracy than what I've just said.
So I've chosen, and he knew I was gonna ask him to go first,
deliberately, to lead us off.
And then I will turn to Nadia Urbinati,
Ira Katznelson, and Michael Kazin.
Jim. - Thanks, Jim.
Thank you for inviting me, it's a pleasure to be here,
and thanks all of you for being here in the late afternoon.
I've been studying the conjunction of liberalism
and democracy for 40 years now.
My first book was a study of exactly the moment that Jim
was just referring to when people coming out of socialism
move into social democracy
and people coming out of liberalism
move toward progressivism.
So it does seem to me clear that there has been this tension
from the beginning of both a democratic tradition
and a liberal tradition, but I think beginning
in the early 20th century it became clear
that it was possible to bring these two together.
And that's what I've been trying to study my entire career.
Both liberalism and democracy I think are complex phenomena.
I'm a historian, so my first sentence is always,
it's more complicated than you thought.
I'd say that both of these are constituted historically
by the struggles fought by people who were committed
to ideals that are not only in tension with each other,
but that are essentially contested.
The meanings of freedom, equality, justice,
have changed over time,
and they have changed across cultures.
So the idea that there is going to be a single conception
of liberalism or democracy that anyone has agreed upon,
or that we will agree upon, I think, is a phantom.
After having written this book about the rise
of social democracy, I wrote a book called
The Virtues of Liberalism that was focused on
the inadequacy of thinking about liberalism
strictly in terms of rights.
And that's a point that a lot of people
have made in various ways.
It was also about obligations, it was also about the duties
that one owes to the common good.
It may be that liberalism dates from the early 19th century,
as Helena noted earlier today, but the word liberality
comes into the English language from Latin,
and from the beginning it had a dual significance.
It meant either generosity towards one's fellows,
or it meant licentiousness.
And that sort of dual possibility,
that protean word, has been part of liberal tradition,
I think, as it's been understood by its champions
and its critics from the beginning.
I argued in that book that liberalism as it emerges
in the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries,
to use the word anachronistically,
had religious and political and economic dimensions.
The United States as a democratic nation emerged
from the blending of various inherited traditions.
Protestant Christianity, Classical Republicanism,
Lockean empiricism, Scottish Common Sense philosophy,
and Enlightenment Rationalism.
All of those components have been involved
and have been changing in relation to each other ever since.
In the book that Jim referred to, Toward Democracy,
even though it goes back to the ancient world in order,
in part, to make the point that Jim just made,
that Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism
are quite different from what we think of
as modern democracy,
the book begins really with the wars of religion,
because I think it is quite true
that democracy is rooted in an understanding
that something has to be done to keep people
simply from butchering each other.
And so we go first through a phase of absolutism,
monarchism, absolute authority of the monarch,
to a world in which people begin experimenting
with the ideas of popular sovereignty
that then come to fruition in the 18th and 19th century.
It's true I think that democracy requires an institutional
structure, it requires the rule of law,
it requires free and fair elections,
but I think it requires more than that.
I think it requires an orientation toward the ideals
of autonomy and equality and popular sovereignty.
But beyond that, it requires certain predispositions,
certain sensibilities, certain cultural foundations,
pillars, I call them,
without which I think a democratic culture cannot survive,
let alone thrive.
And those I think don't get the attention they need.
First of those is a commitment to deliberation,
to discourse, to debate as a way of making decisions.
Second, to pluralism, or diversity,
toleration, as we were saying earlier today.
And finally to what I call an ethic of reciprocity.
Could call it The Golden Rule if that's more familiar.
But without that one who loses an election would never agree
to cede power to the opposition.
All of these I think are values that have to be
balanced against each other.
If they aren't, just to take one example,
if majority rule is your only value,
any group of three can yield a majority of two
committed to enslaving the other one, right?
So you need a robust conception of autonomy to push back
against something as simple as the idea of majority rule.
So I think of liberal democracy as a heuristic,
or an ideal type.
As Ann pointed out, it's certainly not a reality
for most people in the world now, or ever.
It is a horizon that's always receding, historically
no matter what culture you're in.
Because it's not only about laws and institutions,
but it's also an ethical ideal,
as John Dewey never tired of pointing out.
So there are tensions between liberalism and democracy
certainly, as Jim pointed out,
but I think they should be seen in the 21st century
as mutually constitutive, as dynamic,
and as multi-dimensional.
So why is liberal democracy in such crisis
in the 21st century?
From my perspective as a historian,
the underlying reasons are cultural.
They are not only the absence of commitments
to robust ideals of autonomy, equality,
and popular sovereignty, but also
an absence of commitment to the underpinnings of democracy,
to deliberation, to pluralism, and above all
to an ethic of reciprocity.
Thank you.
(audience applauding)
- Thank you, I'm continuing on the same line,
because I almost agree on everything that you said.
So, it seems that I have nothing to say more,
but something more I guess to say, actually.
So, I like to push a little bit farther this issue
about liberal hyphen democracy
and say that the liberal-democracy package
is so widely admired today
that people tend to forget that it is in fact a package.
And as also has been said,
it is the outcome of a long history
that's sometimes contradictory, sometimes in conflict,
from the moment in which the universal suffrage
was achieved, liberalism became more anti-democratic,
and when this split between the two was achieved,
the situation was dramatic.
So fascism was achieved when it was able to separate the two
and to claim against both of them.
So my point thus is, against forms of
nationalism, of populism re-emerging today,
the project could be perhaps that of
reuniting more than before
the liberal and the democracy two moments.
Does this package, it needs to be seen together
in trajectory, but also today in the 21st century,
to be appreciated as one made of two,
one reality made of two components.
So political scientists have identified the achievement
of constitutional democracy after World War II,
with the achievement indeed of liberal democracy.
And this morning, Moyn told us
that liberalism during the Cold War
became a kind of ideology.
And we have to save ourself, or this legacy,
from that ideology.
So liberal-democracy, with the hyphen,
as it is being constructed through the Cold War,
may be perhaps the problem we have to get rid of,
or at least to moderate,
or to change a little bit.
Why I say so, because there is today
the assumption that it's possible to have
not only liberal-democracy, but also illiberal-democracy.
According to me these is the real problem
we should consider,
because when,
or ban rights for instance, that
democracy can be in the illiberal form,
and as I am democrat, although I am not liberal,
we should be very concerned about this junction.
So in the hyphen terminology that we are familiar with,
it seems possible to oppose liberalism to democracy
by ascribing a protection of freedom to liberalism alone,
and seeing democracy as autonomy power and majority rule.
I think this is somehow
problematic today in some sense.
Now although the ancient and modern democracy
of course are different on many many
concern, they are very different, they can,
they have something in common though.
The idea that it's possible to be in dissent or dissent,
you go to change your mind and thus vote.
And this question of changing our mind,
the question of dissent, is one of the reason why democracy
needs inside of itself, individual liberty.
Because dissent and the ability of say,
the opposite of what you said yesterday,
and the ability of being in disagreement even with yourself,
with your loyalty, which is what democracy allows you to do
because this is what about majority-minority is about,
then this means that democracy has inside
the ability of having liberty, individual liberty,
and the liberty of free speech in the public,
freedom of association with others,
and freedom of the press today we would say.
So there is a sense of potential
for internal evolution of liberalism from within.
Why I say so, because in my view this has been
also seen in the concern that many political theories
and democratic theories had
when they had to respond fascism or totalitarianism.
I'm quoting from Hans Kelsen, 1945.
The will of the community in a democracy is always created
through a running discussion between majority and opposition
through free consideration of arguments for and against
the certain regulation of the subject matter.
This discussion takes place not only in Parliament,
but also and foremost at political meetings, in newspapers,
books, and other vehicles of public opinion.
A democracy without public is a contradiction in terms.
Insofar as public opinion can arise only when and where
intellectual freedom, freedom of speech,
press, and religion are guaranteed,
democracy coincides with political,
although not necessarily economic, liberalism.
I take to be these an important point to stress,
and thus, just to conclude
because I think I'm running against time,
I would like to,
to use an expression, or a very interesting
generalization made by Kant when he was talking about peace.
And I apply what Kant said about the perpetual peace
to what I just said about liberalism and democracy,
or democracy with liberty, or liberalism inside.
So I say thus that liberal-slash-democracy is a pleonasm
in a very same way in which Kant used to say
of the perpetual peace.
I'm quoting from Kant, since peace means
the end of all hostilities,
a mere suspension of hostility is not peace, but a truce.
Hence, to attach the adjective perpetual to peace,
is already suspiciously close to pleonasm.
So if we attach liberalism and democracy,
we imply that they can stay separated
and can develop well separately,
and I think this can be a pleonasm.
And I use it in the same way.
So I will say that
a counter-argument against that,
that comes from the fascists themselves,
we forget sometimes that when they arise in the '20s,
and I don't want to make any parallel,
but simply to give an idea of why I'm insisting so much
on keeping together always liberalism and democracy,
fascism was neither a form of democracy without liberalism,
nor was it democracy, nor was political liberalism.
It was none of them.
And indeed, I just printed
the Manifesto of Fascism of 1925,
among the many things against the liberalism,
against socialist, is against democracy.
Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings
who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical,
and destructive than one.
Thus this means that these many tyrants
are a fantastic way of neutralizing tyranny.
So thank you.
(audience applauding)
- Well those were really the first two, terrific start.
Colleague Kloppenberg gave us a very rich
account of the elements that compose democracy,
not as a fixed element, but which compose the family.
And without the elements you mentioned,
autonomy, popular sovereignty, et cetera,
and the undergirding values, we don't have democracy.
I want to ask as my first question,
what are the elements that compose the liberal family,
or at least the political liberal family,
without which we don't have a family of instances,
not that liberalism is fixed,
but that absent these elements,
there is no such thing as political liberalism.
And the list is familiar.
Bill Galston already spoke about government by consent.
I would add to individual rights,
which always is on the list, public rights.
Press freedom for example isn't just a matter
of the individual, it's a matter of collective expression
and collective opposition.
Rule of law, not just law, but something beyond law.
Fascism had law, communism had law,
but liberal law is a rule of law, and of course,
the meaning of that is a subject of great debate.
That would be third.
Fourth, and not in lexical order, just as a list,
political representation, which didn't originate
with liberals and liberalism,
but absent political representation under modern condition,
we cannot have liberalism.
And finally,
but more contingently as as a historical matter, toleration.
But pluralism and respect for pluralism,
and therefore toleration, is a key feature,
and I would argue without which
you might have some forms of liberalism,
but it would be a very injured form of liberalism.
Now if these are the core elements, none fixed,
but no decent regime can do without them,
then what, we're asked to think about,
is it's relationship to democracy.
And a democracy, really building on what
has already been said,
entails minimally rules of participation,
entails a peaceful transitions of leadership,
and entails procedures that produce
provisional policy outcomes.
So the question, one question we might ask is
what are the mechanisms of connection between democracy
and liberalism with the characteristics I mentioned,
and there, in addition to norms,
we have to talk about institutions.
Institutions that have come to include political parties,
parliaments, elections.
These are the sights within which
the key liberal principles and key democratic practices
must get expressed.
And therefore as those intuitions weaken
or become illegitimate, or become sights of
anxiety about their capacity to solve large problems,
both liberalism and democracy, alone, separately,
and together, come to be in deep problems.
But if we take a longer view, not just about the present,
it seems to me there are three sets of issues, or zones,
I like to call them zones of transaction,
which are central to liberalism and about which
democratic contestation debates,
and arrives at provisional policy outcomes.
And the deepest premise one could argue of the liberal,
liberal ontology as it were,
is the existence of separate spheres of state, economy,
and civil society, not reducible one to the other.
And therefore, the most important political questions
are how state to state relations will be managed,
how state economy relations will be managed,
and how state civil society relations will be managed.
And the premise of that remark is to say
that liberalism itself is premised on the existence
of modern states.
It is stateness as it were as a value all the way down.
The question for liberals is how to control
that potential monster, and how to do it,
how to protect people from predatory rule,
and predatory rulers.
How to maintain an independent economy
and an independent civil society,
and how to manage external relations so as to protect
the capacity to have these separate spheres.
But, and here I want to close, liberalism qua liberalism,
married to democracy or not married to democracy,
but especially when married to democracy,
has three profound zones of vulnerability.
And we're seeing them at work today.
One is the following, liberals and liberalism,
and I would say democrats and democracy,
thinking of the ancients,
have never solved the problem of membership.
Once you have a polity with boundaries,
the question of who inside those boundaries,
and who gets into those boundaries from outside remains
an astonishingly vexing and difficult question.
The only thing liberals and the liberal tradition
have to say, quoted earlier,
when Locke was quoted, is a criterion of rationality.
A liberal citizen is meant to be a citizen who can reason
and deliberate and participate in the process
as an autonomous independent player.
But who is autonomous?
Well, in long history, certainly women weren't thought to be
capable of autonomous reason and deliberation.
Slaves weren't, you can make a long list.
So this is a cultural question,
not just a political question, of who qualifies as a member.
And liberalism, and democracy, have been quite content
to have very narrow definitions
as well as broad definitions.
Second of the three great vulnerabilities
comes in the area of security in the stateness of states.
Hamilton writes in Federalist 23
that under conditions of exigency, and I quote precisely,
there shall be no constitutional shackles.
Well if liberalism is about limited state,
is about shackling the state, and shackling democracy,
what happens when the circumstances of exigency
are either understood to be, or actually are,
sufficiently great that the very durability
of liberal democracies is called into question.
Shall there be really no constitutional shackles?
And finally, one we're gonna devote the evening session to,
so I won't go on at all about it,
is the question of property,
and the relationship of property and sovereignty.
How freestanding, and/or how regulated?
And I would say that as we know,
there's an enormous range of answers
that democrats and liberals give,
but there's no fixed set of answer from within liberalism,
or from within democracy.
Final sentences.
It seems to me that the marriage of liberalism and democracy
not only faces these areas of vulnerability,
but under some conditions, the democratization of liberalism
poses deep problems for liberalism under certain forms
of the politicization of questions of membership,
security, and property.
And we see that exactly at work in American politics today.
Finally, just I want everyone to reread,
or read, an essay I've just reread with some students
of Judith Shklar on obligation and loyalty,
reminding us that obligation and loyalty
are not precisely the same.
Obligation is in the realm of reason.
You spoke earlier, Bill, about obligation.
Obligation comes out of being located
in determinate circumstances, therefore liberal citizens,
as democratic players, have obligations, not just rights.
But loyalty is a matter of emotion.
And no decent liberal democracy will survive absent loyalty.
That is the emotional constellation that ties people to it,
and makes them willing to defend it.
And the great question for us it seems to me
is that under conditions of deep contestation
about membership, security, and property,
how do we achieve sufficient and robust,
but decent kinds of loyalty and obligation
to secure the marriage of liberalism and democracy?
Thank you.
(audience applauding)
- I got to admit at the beginning,
I'm a bit of a fraud here.
I've never written about the marriage
or divorce between liberalism and democracy.
I'm a historian of social movements and politics,
so that's what I'll talk about.
And I want to raise the question,
which can ramify in different directions,
why is there not and for the most part never has been,
a liberal social movement?
Called that, or I think in many ways,
even by most definitions.
There have been liberal intellectuals,
there have been liberal politicians,
liberal theorists of course, but
it's difficult to identify a liberal mass movement.
In the United States for example,
the major movements in U.S. history,
in the 19th century and into the middle
and late 20th century,
have been the Prohibitionist movement,
which lasted for a hundred years, which was certainly not
a liberal movement if you're talking about toleration
and of religious difference, and of moral beliefs.
Obviously the socialist movement was not.
The labor movement I don't think was either.
One can argue the abolitionist and suffrage movements
were in certain ways,
but I think they were all in different ways
about democracy certainly.
About those who felt exploited by those on top
and wanted to have a voice,
a voice that was enshrined in law,
and they also wanted to have power.
And liberals I think have always had a
ambiguous relationship with power.
And we've been talking about, around that in some ways
all day long I think.
Also I think, and going back to Skinnerian ways of analyzing
the kind of wonderful books
that both Elena and Jim have written,
do this really beautifully for their different subjects.
As was mentioned before it's really only a hundred years ago
with the Wilson administration
and the Wilsonian intellectuals
that liberalism becomes a term that people talk about.
But it's certainly true too that Wilson was primarily
influenced in using that term, I think by Gladstone
and by the Liberal Party in Britain.
There's an old book by a historian named Robert Kelley
about the Gladstonian persuasion, transatlantic persuasion
where he puts Gladstone right in the center of that.
And Gladstone was Wilson's favorite,
he was his hero when he was younger.
And of course as most of you know he hankered after
a parliamentary system for a while before changing his mind.
But I think it's important to note this because
when the terms gets appropriated by other politicians,
Franklin D. Roosevelt especially,
and turned into a synonym for the New Deal.
It has a different connection than it did
I think for Wilson and for the most part
than it did for Gladstone too,
and for most of these movements.
It has a connection as we know to economic reform,
to positive liberty,
to the embryonic welfare state
that has in many ways retreated in recent years,
Obamacare notwithstanding.
And the term as we know, since the 1960s, has been,
has adopted, if that's the right verb, a taint of elitism.
We all know that.
Steve Fraser, a very fine labor historian,
wrote a book last year called Limousine Liberal
where he talked in wonderfully complex ways
about why that term took off.
It was invented by a Democrat, Mario Procaccino
when he was running for mayor against John Lindsay,
who did proclaim himself a liberal, but also was
as you all remember, most of you, many of you remember,
was very much sort of had an elitist way
of carrying himself and speaking, and dressing.
And now liberalism of course means
for most Americans I think almost anything
but economic reform.
A certain proclivity to support environmentalism,
cosmopolitan values and tastes,
racial and gender justice.
It's a far cry from the way FDR used the term,
and from the way many people on the socialist left
used the term in the '30s as well,
especially during the popular front.
Harry Bridges, the longtime head
of the longshore union on the west coast,
who was probably a member of the Communist Party
for many years.
Gave a speech in 1939 where he hailed the victory
of a pro-labor Democrat in California by saying
the victory was won by all liberal,
laboring, and progressive people.
Notice how these, all three synonyms basically.
And so I think, you know, I was thinking about this session,
some reason the famous line from Peter Brook's Marat/Sade
popped into my head.
We want our rights and we don't care how,
we want a revolution, now.
In many ways I think that's a contradiction in terms.
Because as much as liberalism is associated with rights,
has been historically and very much is today as well,
few people make revolutions or form social movements,
at least mass social movements
because they feel deprived of their rights.
They do them because as I mentioned before
they feel they are powerless,
they are exploited by those who have power,
they want a voice.
They want a way to get power over their lives.
Not because primarily at least
they feel their rights have been violated.
Turn to the absence of a liberal movement
in the United States at least.
There are many people who care very deeply
about civil liberties and human rights of course,
here and around the world.
And it's accurate to call them liberals.
They certainly have organizations,
NGOs especially with a good deal of influence.
The primary liberal organization in the United States today
I think is the American,
the ACLU.
The ACLU was founded almost a hundred years ago.
It was founded out of a social movement.
The movement against World War I in this country,
which involved Democratic segregationists
and Republican pro-civil rights progressives
like Robert La Follette, socialists and feminists
and anarchists and other groups.
It began as the legal arm of a social movement
but over its history the ACLU has migrated
until at least recently to a more neutral stance,
as we know, about defending
the First Amendment rights of everybody.
Nazis, socialists, anarchists,
civil rights demonstrators, whoever.
But more recently, since Donald Trump's been elected,
it's become a legal arm again of a social movement,
though one might even call, might call it an insurgency.
Not sure it's actually a social movement,
that is the Resistance.
Is the Resistance concerned, is this a liberal resistance?
Certainly most of the people in it
probably consider themselves to be liberals.
But again, I don't think they're primarily interested
in rights, not primarily interested
in protecting other rights.
Primarily interested in protecting the gains
of a liberal state, perhaps,
and mass movements against the attempt by Donald Trump
and his administration and his supporters
in the Republican Party to erode them
and to demolish them if possible.
Environmental protection, healthcare protection,
corporate regulation, labor unions,
and the rule of law more generally.
And finally to talk a little bit at the end
about our current
controversy, debate in this country,
which of course is Christine Blasey Ford
versus Judge Kavanaugh
and the masses of people on both sides.
Interesting in a way that the defense that
Kavanaugh has made and those conservatives,
mostly conservatives, who defended him,
is one based on rights.
The rights of the accused.
Whereas though who believe in and defend
Christine Blasey Ford, of which I include myself among them,
I think are more concerned with exploitation,
with the power of men over women,
with the way in which these accusation,
these kind of harassment and sexual abuse,
which she and many other women have suffered,
are devalued and denied and pushed under the rug.
So again, those who defend Ford,
who consider themselves liberals
are really thinking about power.
And those who defend Brett Kavanaugh
at least define what they're doing
in the language of rights.
So there's an interesting contradiction there perhaps,
or at least a kind of complexity.
Like Jim I'm an historian
and so I take refuge in complexity.
But in many ways I think we're arguing,
when we argue about Ford and Kavanaugh,
we're arguing about who has the power to define
what is going on.
Who has the power to define what the people actually want.
Whether women and their supporters
have the power to define that or whether men
who say this has not been proved and so Kavanaugh
should get the benefit of the doubt
and should be confirmed to the highest court in the land
for a lifetime appointment really are the ones
who should get the benefit of the doubt.
So these are some reflections
on why I think it's very difficult
to talk about a liberal mass movement.
And that's part of the reason I think why liberalism
is in trouble and arguably has always been in trouble
as a positive vision.
Because it's not a positive vision which really
inspires and grips people to devote their lives
to fighting for it, as opposed to fighting for democracy,
fighting against exploitation of class, gender,
nation, or race.
Thank you. - Thanks.
(audience applauding)
As in previous panels I'd like to give
the panelists a chance to ask each other questions
or make comments on what you've heard.
I have a question I want to ask
because I've heard it several times today now
that liberalism has no positivity.
I don't believe it.
And I'm gonna speak in very colloquial terms here
to try to get at something
that is in the background I think of,
knowing what everyone on this panel has written.
I think in the period, and now just to talk
in the United States, the birthplace of populism is America.
It was born in the United States
as of course Michael Kazin knows,
that's where the term originates.
It is a popular mass movement that rises up
to put pressure on political parties
and it forms for a brief time its own political party.
It fades away and in its wake we get progressivism
and then liberalism of the classic American sense
in which liberalism and democracy are conjoined as one
by Woodrow Wilson, quite self-consciously.
What comes out of that moment,
I don't think Patrick Deneen is here any longer.
There you are, I was not sure.
Is that there is an interpretation of Wilson
which based on his manuscripts and early writings
I think has some, there's something to it,
that what he tries to do in this fusion
is create a very positive conception of state power,
which leads directly to the modern administrative state
and the regulatory state.
And that in the minds of most Americans
to say that liberalism is purely negative
would make no sense.
The people who are hostile to liberalism often see it
as a enormous administrative apparatus that oversees
many of the liberal protections
that Ira was talking about
in terms of enforcing the observation of individual rights,
making sure that political representation
is applied equally.
Workplace safety rules, statistical bureaus,
et cetera, et cetera.
And eventually this apparatus takes over
the question of security and creates secret organizations,
the FBI is perhaps the first,
that operate in secrecy in the name of
a state of emergency,
which to begin with under Wilson
had to do with the Red Scare.
So it seems to me there is this kind of positivity
about liberalism, and that
the part of the what fuels
later populist revolts in the United States
is the sense that what's happened here
is that a technocratic elite of credentialed experts
has been implanted in charge of state power
at great remove from ordinary people,
and that in fact liberalism in this form,
it's a fake democracy because it actually
deeply fears ordinary people.
It fears what they would say, it fears how they would act,
it hides behind the cloak of protecting minorities
because it's fearful of an actual majority,
and it actually is a complete sham
as a democracy.
And that part of this apparatus is invested
in suppressing, molding and manipulating a popular will.
And that, that.
So I'd like somebody on the panel to speak to this,
what I think is a fairly obvious fear
of a form of liberalism that,
you know maybe it's not accurate or true, but you know.
- I'd like to respond to it just quickly,
maybe other people probably do too but.
Well in some ways you're backing up what I was saying,
I think, I mean nobody demanded an administrative state.
There was not, you know, people didn't go to the polls
demanding an administrative state of course.
Administrative state as you know evolved
because it was the only way to enforce certain bills
that people did want,
but there's a wonderful book some of you probably know
by the political scientist Elizabeth Sanders
called the Roots of Reform, in which she talks about
how the populists and other anti-monopoly groups
composed mostly of workers and farmers
in the late 19th century,
they wanted a more powerful government
but they didn't want a more powerful state, you know.
They wanted people basically to get all this great stuff
from the state and get this protection from the state
without having a bureaucracy carrying it out.
Now you can argue that was naive.
You can't have a big state without state building,
but nevertheless that's what they wanted.
And I think in some ways
the germ of the problem that liberals
and the liberal state have had
with the exception of '30s to early '60s,
and talk about that if we have time,
is that the administrative state
has never been popular even though,
bureaucracy's never been popular,
however, what people get from that state has been popular.
- [Jim] Jim.
- Yeah, I think this is really the central issue
in 20th century American political history,
and the way you described it Jim, I think is the controversy
that historians of progressivism have been fighting over
for half a century now.
There are multiple wings of progressivism,
including the wing that begins with
the New Republic liberals and Louis Brandeis,
that really does see itself in its origin
as doing the people's business.
As carrying forward much of what was
a popular demand for regulation.
What happens very quickly though is it
comes to be perceived as something
by which elites manipulate the people, as you said.
And the contrast between Max Weber
on bureaucracy on the one hand,
and John Dewey and his acolytes and students
in the New Deal on the other, is a really striking contrast
because Weber sees before there's any
bureaucracy to speak of in the United States
precisely what the promise of bureaucracy is
and the reason why it's going to be
in such tension with democracy.
Whereas Dewey and his allies
believed that you can democratize bureaucracy,
many of the New Deal agencies were put in place
with the understanding that they would administered locally.
Now when you ask yourself how the New Deal's
gonna be administered in Selma in a way that's fair,
you see the problem that Weber had already
put his finger on.
The universality of rules and the particularity
of local governance are in tension with each other.
And so I think the challenge has always been
to take this regulatory ideal
that comes into being exactly when you identify it,
and make it do what it was designed to do
rather than what it ends up doing.
Now Lippmann, Walter Lippmann,
one of the founders of the New Republic,
was the first person to identify this
in his book Public Opinion.
His first two books are very much a call
for this kind of democratic reform in public opinion.
Having been part of Wilson's inquiry during World War I
he says wait a minute,
it's actually very easy to manipulate the people,
it's very easy for elites to cover themselves
with a mask of democracy and instead
decide how it is that the people are going to come
to knowledge, or what's going to count as knowledge.
And from that point on, that critique of democracy
as ruled by elites becomes a part of social science.
And it's a tension that I don't think anybody has resolved.
- So, when very shortly after Franklin Roosevelt
took his oath of office, Herbert Hoover wrote an article
in the Saturday Evening Post in which he complained bitterly
that Roosevelt had stolen the word liberal.
"We are all liberals in America," he said.
This is our common value, it's not a partisan value.
And it means liberty.
It was a certain version of an argument that Harts made,
and I know we don't completely agree with Harts,
Harts made two decades later, but in effect,
whether or not you think Harts had it right or wrong,
the punchline it was that
for Harts and for Hoover, the issue wasn't whether Americans
were liberals, but what kind of liberalism
we should wish to have.
And once we ask that question, it seems to me two big
puzzles, again more puzzles, come into play.
What kind of liberalism should we wish to have with respect
to the thrust that Tocqueville put front and center.
Not just a quality but popular sovereignty,
which is the essence of demo, one essence of democracy.
Chapter four of Democracy in America,
Tocqueville writes the most extraordinary sentence.
He says, "In America the people rule
"as God reigns in the universe."
And it's called Popular Sovereignty, that chapter.
Well, the people, who are the people?
Is it a multitude of people with proper names, like us?
Is it an abstract people, we the people of the United States
is not proper named people, it's a concept of a collective.
Or is it something in between the two,
a kind of citizens bound by rules, procedures and norms,
which is I think where the founders wanted it essentially,
but the first big puzzle for liberal democrats is
how do we move between and among
these levels of popular sovereignty.
And when should the people appear in different modes,
in their modus constituent powers,
the abstract we the people, legitimating a regime.
Or in the form of a multitude,
or in the form of a institutionalized citizenry.
And the second big puzzle, and I'll stop with this,
is the fact that the liberal tradition itself,
leave democracy to the side,
I think it's true of democracy too.
The liberal tradition is very porous.
It is not,
all those values I spoke about earlier,
they're not just high walls and thick walls around them,
they're are permeable walls.
Liberalism has bonded over time
with the republican tradition.
It's the theme of a book I wrote with Andreas Kalyvas,
called Liberal Beginnings.
Liberalism has bonded with socialism.
The welfare state is a kind of liberal socialism.
The welfare state has, and you've written about this
in your early work.
Liberalism has bonded with racism
and indeed allowed forms of what I like to call
sanitized representation, when southern Democrats,
as soon as they crossed the threshold,
despite being elected by almost nobody
in a one-party system,
became liberal representatives like everybody else.
And liberalism has bonded with
different kinds of forms of authoritarianism.
And we could talk about that.
So in the end the question for liberals and Democrats
and especially for those of us who are liberal Democrats,
is not simply as Nadia put it to defend,
or others have put it, the basic core principles,
which I agree with, but it's also to have to confront
the hard questions of what kind of liberal democracy
should we wish to have.
Not only whether, but what kind.
- Yes, excellent, so two brief questions, issues.
The first one, bureaucracy.
Bentham introduced, as we know,
the greatest perhaps attempt to reorganize
the entire state or system and bureaucracy
changing completely the method for recruitment
and the method for distribution of good and services
to introduce an element of impartiality
that would (mumbles).
So today what we witness,
particularly in the transformations of
party democracy into populist democracy
is not that, the target is not the bureaucracy
because they want to demolish bureaucracy,
but they want to conquer bureaucracy.
To politicize bureaucracy to the point that bureaucracy
is in the end of those rule.
Exactly going back against the tradition
that Bentham introduced.
So the problem for, according to me today,
I don't know the state, but I know better Europe,
is precisely the transformation of party democracy,
plural party democracy, into a form of,
let's see, direct representation, the people as one,
represented by leaders, plebiscitary leaders,
sometimes creating their own parties,
sometimes conquering existing parties,
in order to re-achieve and to conquer the state altogether,
both institutions and those supposedly autonomous
or impartial kind of branches of the state.
So it is a kind of (mumbles)
that claims to have
the only right say and only legitimate say
because it's representing the true people.
The true people, the majority as the true people,
not as one possible majority
or one possible representations of people.
So it is in my view, this one,
one of the several important challenges
representative constitutional democracy is facing today.
That is, question of division of powers.
Questions of the rule of impartiality
and the limits of political decision making.
Divisions between functions of states and parties,
parties are now practically occupying the states altogether,
not simply making in the service of the state
the constructions of law making.
So it is an issue of re,
here liberalism is important,
re-injecting the art of
limitation that liberalism was so capable
in the age of constructing,
or constructions of nation-states
in the 19th century in particular.
So, but those days it was the liberalism of the few
because liberalism was not a movement, a large movement,
and it was never actually,
it was always a kind of elite kind of movement.
And today for this reason it is important
to re-achieve democracy within
the value of liberty I said before.
Because liberalism cannot do that,
it doesn't have any vocation of creating popular
or a kind of mass parties, but democracy has this power.
For this reason, democracy needs to be
reinterpreted within the logic for liberalism
and art of limitations and these tensions
in order to be able to limit itself from inside.
Which is what today is the most difficult task to achieve
because we are witnessing a transformation
of representative democracy and party democracy.
De facto is very different from
the pluralistic kind of party system
with the separation of the medias from the majority system.
Today it is as if there is a coalescing
of all those these forces together
in the ends of those who claim to represent the true people.
I see these as the main issues today.
- Ah.
- Can I raise a question, maybe everyone might respond to,
which relates to some of these comments.
For many Americans today, I think liberalism means
people who are for big government, right.
Big government, and we know liberals, you know,
Bill Clinton struggled with how to address that
and of course Ronald Reagan
famously attacked big government.
But of course, as we know, as realists,
pretty much everyone in this room,
big government is with us to stay, it's not going anywhere.
And the question is who government serves.
So how
do liberal principles help us
either defend government or get away from
the necessity to defend government,
to talk about what government does,
instead of government as this behemoth, supposedly boogeyman
which wants to reach into your lives and control them?
- It's true that big government is here to stay
but there is no consensus, certainly not in this country,
about what I was earlier calling the rules of transaction
between state and economy.
Just think of how many executive orders of President Obama
have been turned in opposite direction by President Trump.
And I'm not taking sides in this,
though I have a preference, but the,
it seems to me both of them were instantiating
very different views of
the role of government and regulation vis a vis the economy.
There's a wonderful document which I stumbled across
recently again on a shelf
of a debate at the American Enterprise Institute
about regulation in 1976 that involved
Ronald Reagan and Hubert Humphrey among other people.
In which they both very articulately
both as liberals in the sense we've been using the term,
certainly Ronald Reagan was
and certainly Hubert Humphrey was,
articulated those points of dispute.
And I would think that in democratic life what's critical
is to define as crisply as possible
the character of the choices,
not just with respect to the economy
but with respect to the nature of interest representation
in civil society, the nature of foreign relations.
There are a lot of deep, thick substantive issues
but what's critical for us
is that the adjudication take place within the frame,
normative and institutional,
that we've been calling liberal democracy.
- Can I say some?
And so, just to add onto what Ira said
just now about Herbert Hoover, who said,
who argued with FDR and others
about the meaning of liberal.
Of course Herbert Hoover was a free market guy
and he said, you know, "I'm a liberal."
But then a few years later,
he finally, the word liberal had gotten
so associated with FDR and the New Deal
that he said, "Oh you can have the word.
"You've raped it of all meaning."
But you know, the argument went on
about big government and small government.
Hayek also I understand at one point
got very frustrated and said, you know,
all right, you know, I started using the word libertarian.
People started to call themselves libertarian
or they would say well we're the classical liberals.
You've, you know, hijacked the term
and polluted it of all meaning.
And I wanted to ask one more thing, if I may,
and you know, contemporary politics is,
people know it's not my thing,
so excuse me if I say something silly now.
But we're talking about populism and what a problem it is,
a liberal democracy and all of this.
But is there a good populism and a bad populism?
What do we do, aren't we asked for people in the, no?
- [Nadia] Bad bad bad.
- But what does it mean-- - It's very polarized up here,
I can tell you. - I'm on the right here.
- [Ira] He's a good good good, she's a bad bad bad.
- You want to go first, do you want me to go first?
I mean, I think, look I'm an American historian and
whenever I go to conferences in other countries and talk,
populism conferences, I'm the only person
saying a good word for populism.
And of course everyone there is pretty much the leftists,
or at least the center-leftists.
I mean, it depend as usual
how do you define the term, right?
But I define it as a political discourse of the moral
hardworking, often God-fearing, but not always, majority
against a self-serving often undemocratic elite.
And if you define it that way,
then it's a promiscuous language
which can be used by different social forces.
I think Bernie Sanders talked a language
that the original populists in the 1890s
would have understood very well.
He didn't talk about the big money,
but he talked about billionaires, same thing really.
And on and on and on,
he talked about Wall Street, so did they.
I won't continue the analogy, but I think Donald Trump also
spoke as we know a language of populism.
There's, you know, very quickly
I think you'd identify two different populist traditions,
at least in the United States with some analogs
what's happening in Europe now too, I think.
One is the more left-wing populism
that Bernie Sanders represents I think,
where you try to sort of fudge or
at least minimize the differences ethnically, racially
and otherwise between the people,
and train all your fire at those at the top.
Especially those at the top economically
and sometimes politically if those at the top politically
are in bed with those economically.
And the other tradition, which is just as strong
in the United States, and perhaps in many ways stronger,
is one Trump in his way represents too.
Which is, there's a ordinary people in the middle.
Almost all white, of course.
And traditionally in America almost all Christian,
and that's not true anymore,
and they see a conspiracy of sorts between those at the top
and those at the bottom with dark skins.
And that was true of the anti-Chinese movement
in California, late 19th century.
It was true many ways of the Know Nothings earlier,
and I think it's very much Trump's rhetoric of
he's running against these liberals
and the mainstream media on one hand
and of course he's also trying to stop
those murderous immigrants from coming to the country
on the other hand.
So I think it can be good, but it's a struggle
between what kind of populism is going to be dominant
and that's how I see it.
- Okay. - May I?
- Yeah. - Yeah?
So, I would say the following.
So populism is so ambiguous that it is
impossible to make a definition that can accommodate
all the experiences.
So leaving aside the question of--
- [Mike] Like liberalism.
- Heh-heh, leaving aside the question of ontology,
and try to see
populism as a movement, contestation, or
in society, fine.
There are many kind of movements
and populism's one of those.
And populism when it gets into power, that is
when populism becomes a majority
within a constitutional democracy, not all kind of populism.
So we situate now, in our time now,
and we see what populism can do in our society,
in our democratic representative democracies.
So when we see it in power,
not as a movement of aspirational desire,
a rhetorical or construction of we the people.
Fine, I mean, it's all parties they do so,
particularly when they go close to election.
But when they are in power we have to see them.
Now there is a tendency of transform in democracy,
representative democracy, without going outside
because otherwise we have another regime,
within the limits and the borders
of constitutional democracy
they make some important changes.
For instance they, although they don't change perhaps
the low to the point that they become
fascist kind of regimes, I agree with that.
But they are very important in doing some important moves.
First, the plebiscitary vocation
of putting a leader as the mouth of the people.
I am you voice, I am like you.
This like you, where a simple, in as we know
in party representation we are not like.
We choose somebody because we consider
sometimes even different, so, like you.
Second, they use elections as a way of
expressing the best which are already there.
So the majority is already in society,
the majority of the good people,
elections reveals that majority.
So elections don't play anymore the goal,
the game of creating the majority, they reveal a majority.
They applause, kind of.
Third, they transform clearly
representations into a game of
embodiment.
The leader embodies the people
and the people is one thing with the leader.
For this reason in my view can be very dangerous
when populism becomes a form of government
and not simply a movement in society.
So this will be.
- I would like to, time is running short
so I'm going to allow two questioners
and if you want to rush to a microphone.
- [Man] Have an auction.
- [Mike] And people are exhausted.
- Yeah, right.
- [Mike] I think Jim should have a chance to.
- Yeah. - No no, it's fine.
- Would you like to close on some grace note?
- Not necessarily on a grace note but I think, I mean,
I agreed with Patrick about one thing
which is that most of us here agree with each other
on most of these issues.
That both the liberal tradition and the understandings
of democracy have changed over time,
that they have to be understood
within their historical contexts,
that they're different within different national contexts
and at different times.
But one of the things that I was struck by
is how many people spoke about the need for
a more robust conception of duty or obligation
or affective adhesion to the community.
And it does seem to me as though that's one of the reasons
why there's been such a crisis
in American liberal democracy in the last half century.
That this sense of being part of a shared enterprise
seems to me have eroded.
And one of the challenges that I think all of us face
is to try to find a way, as Danny noted earlier,
to make connections with people outside our way of thinking
so that we don't seem as alien to them as we do now,
and they don't seem as alien to us as they do.
So we have a chance to meet again in February
and between now and then I'll be thinking hard--
- Well we're gonna meet again at 6:30.
- Exactly.
- And we actually have tried to create,
you know, bring together people who actually disagree.
- Yes, very good, very good.
- It's actually hard.
Okay, 'til then.
- In the morning there was one--
- Thank you. - Okay, thank you.
(audience applauding)
-------------------------------------------
The Many Faces of Liberalism: Individualism and Moral Values - Duration: 1:14:55.
For more infomation >> The Many Faces of Liberalism: Individualism and Moral Values - Duration: 1:14:55. -------------------------------------------
The Many Faces of Liberalism: Religious Freedom as a Liberal Right - Duration: 1:13:24.
For more infomation >> The Many Faces of Liberalism: Religious Freedom as a Liberal Right - Duration: 1:13:24. -------------------------------------------
Stéphane Mallarmé - Tristesse d'été - Duration: 3:08.
For more infomation >> Stéphane Mallarmé - Tristesse d'été - Duration: 3:08. -------------------------------------------
The Many Faces of Liberalism: Liberalism and Universal Norms - Duration: 1:42:13.
For more infomation >> The Many Faces of Liberalism: Liberalism and Universal Norms - Duration: 1:42:13. -------------------------------------------
Compilation Chats | Vraiment Top | tfo | Apprendre | Documentaire - Duration: 11:59.
For more infomation >> Compilation Chats | Vraiment Top | tfo | Apprendre | Documentaire - Duration: 11:59. -------------------------------------------
Historia de la Reforma | Jean Henri Merle d'Aubigné - Duration: 3:03.
For more infomation >> Historia de la Reforma | Jean Henri Merle d'Aubigné - Duration: 3:03. -------------------------------------------
Thailand Game Show 2018 is being held now! - Duration: 16:05.
Thailand Game Show 2018 was held
This year is three days from October 26th to 28th. Various events will be held during the period.
Idol dance event, famous game tournament, cosplay event. The whole venue will be an event booth.
PC shops are also selling gaming PC parts. It is an event I want you to definitely go to games lovers.
The venue is Siam Paragon. Let's GO!!!
-------------------------------------------
Fiat 500 1.2 Sport AUTOMAAT / LEDER / D-RIEM VERVANGEN - Duration: 1:12.
For more infomation >> Fiat 500 1.2 Sport AUTOMAAT / LEDER / D-RIEM VERVANGEN - Duration: 1:12. -------------------------------------------
"love your god" (demo) - Duration: 4:41.
For more infomation >> "love your god" (demo) - Duration: 4:41. -------------------------------------------
HANDCRAFTED DREAMS & GOALS | your passions and vision - Duration: 4:42.
life is not meant for you to watch that somebody else follow their dreams chase
their goals and achieve everything they wanted to ever achieve hey everybody I
just had a couple things I just wanted to get off of my chest well not really
it's not like something I'm venting about but I wanted to turn on the camera
and basically good on my little soapbox for a second you were designed for a
specific for a very detailed column you were not put on this earth to just sit
on the sidelines and watch Life go by think of your biggest hairiest most
magical amazing dream that you want to achieve you can achieve it if you
believe in yourself you can do whatever you put your mind to life is not meant
for you to watch that somebody else follow their dreams chase their goals
and achieve everything they wanted to ever achieve that's meant for you too
that's good for them but that's also meant for you there's not a single
person on this earth that was just put here to just live mediocre to just like
watch Life go by just to watch other people gain success and I'm preaching to
myself as well I'm Alex speaking to myself my head like a mirror I guess I
like talking to myself because I need to hear this too there's so many times that
you know I can see other people getting into things that I love and I like and I
get I don't I don't want to say I don't get jealous but I definitely get a
little insecure like am i working hard enough is this the right direction
because no matter what we do in life it's hard to just like sit back and be
like is this the direction I'm supposed to be going in so because each of us are
so specific it's so detailed so intricate because we are that means
we are able to live out a purpose in a dream and a calling that is that
specific and unique detailed because that's who we are even
jobs careers or blank lifestyles that I would say is more of a perfect mold like
for me it would personally be something when I look at it would be like somebody
is a nurse or somebody who is a teacher and now that those are perfect molds but
in my mind that's the you know Torian musician youtuber person who doesn't
have any like specific place to go specific thing to do
teacher and nurse it's more like I guess what I would consider a perfect mold or
more like a stable job but even those things even if you are a nurse even if
somebody's a teacher they are very specific and they're very intricate
maybe the nurse is really into bike riding and like leaps biking group every
weekend and maybe the teachers really loving and wants to volunteer at the
clinic event clinic like all the time I mean that's even just things that we
can see there's more things inside of us that make us so different like in our
minds and our hearts and our souls but there's so many things that make us who
we are so why would we not go after dreams that
are as unique as we are your life is not meant to just watch somebody else that
cheat their dreams let me just say that one more time because I feel like so
often that's the mindset I get in okay well I mean maybe it's just not for me
maybe I'm just supposed to like the thing and let somebody else do it better
or do it well or whatever but inside I if I really get real with myself I know
that that's the thing that like I want to do and I feel like I'm meant to do
well and I want to achieve and I want to do better than like you know bettering
myself not trying to be better than nothing
but just bettering myself and I feel like so often we put things on the shelf
because we just as soon as like mentor somebody else to do better or to do well
because we just we don't believe in ourselves enough but we are gonna
believe in ourselves we are going to follow after a dream you were meant to
live the life was so much purpose you were meant to be somebody who follows
their dreams who achieves their goals you believes in themselves and in doing
so encouraging other people to do the same because this world would be so much
of a better place if we all let go of social norms cultural norms and subtext
hold us back we just have to keep pressing forward
don't give up know that your specific crazy dream was meant for you truly
meant for you and don't let anything get in your way
not even you well that's it you guys I smell like I don't want to say hopefully
that made it's that kind of sense and hopefully that inspires even the courage
of you to go after it thank you guys for watching I love you to the moon and back
and until next time
you
-------------------------------------------
Soupe Potiron - La recette ASMR - Duration: 5:58.
For more infomation >> Soupe Potiron - La recette ASMR - Duration: 5:58. -------------------------------------------
O MY GOD DOES NEVER GIVE THIS TO YOUR MAN. IS NOT A REMEDY BUT A POISON FOR HIM! - Duration: 4:58.
music bracket me and you wow my love , welcome to this news
video in which we were simply with BRACKET ME AND
YOU, she is too beautiful this song for you did not know her please listen
so, in this new video as you could see in the title we're going
talking about what ? but of what ? we go talk about this, coke or this
for connoisseurs, how to use it for your little things, or rather how
do not use it, what does it do to you? in the body when you use it? but
before getting to the heart of the matter if ever you are new, you are new, n
do not hesitate to subscribe you likez and comment , Every day, 1.8 billion bottles of
Coca-Cola are sold all over the world, but non-alcoholic soft drinks
can harm your health many ways. Coca-Cola was created in 1892
by the American pharmacist John Pemberton for the purpose of
wean off morphine. Although flogged at the time in pharmacies
as "the most powerful stimulant of sex organs ", the research suggests
that drinking Coca-Cola actually has the effect reverse. *** That's what Coca-Cola REALLY
to your body *** We all know that to consume of the soft drink is not
really good for us but did you know that only one 330 ml jar contains
such a quantity of sugar that he should to make you vomit 10 minutes later? A
red can contains 35 g of sugar, the equivalent of seven spoonfuls to
tea, already more than the daily amount recommended 30 g. But because Coca-Cola
contains acid phosphoric which reduces the sweet taste,
it prevents your body from needing to be sick. Obesity and diabetes are
since a long time related to the excessive acuity of the sweet teeth,
but as sugar is bad for the heart, the same goes for the penis. Use
too much substance white can lead to problems such
that erectile dysfunction (ED) or impotence. In fact, a study done
by researchers of the University Hospital of Copenhagen
in Denmark revealed that the number of sperm consumed by a man consuming a liter
cola daily was 30% lower to that of men who did not drink
sweet boissongazeuse. To have problems with the concentration and quality of your
swimmers is a bad new because it increases your risk of
become sterile. Another research article published in the Central European Journal of
Urology saw scientists to look at the link that
exists between sweeteners in beverages non-alcoholic and the problems they
meet. *** Sugar damage: Seven effects shocking the sweetness of your body *** ls
have discovered a problem with the corn syrup ingredient
high fructose - used in Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper,
Mountain Dew and Sprite - because it was increasing the risk of erectile dysfunction due to
because it increases cholesterol and damages the arteries of the penis. Well
than it can be embarrassing, you should not
not ignore the problems because they are generally related to problems of
more important health. The fact of not being difficult is often the sign that your
heart is not in very good health, because poor cardiovascular health
is the most common cause of dysfunction erectile. Sometimes it's also a symptom
problems like diabetes, high cholesterol
or high blood pressure. This can affect anyone, whether it is punctual
or recurring. IF YOU LIKE, SUBSCRIBE YOU LIKE AND
COMMENT !!
-------------------------------------------
HD Эффекты для монтажа видео Снежинки Proshow Producer - Duration: 2:46.Snowflakes Footages
-------------------------------------------
[basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어공부 ♥Leçon1♥ alphabet coréen - consonnes et-ㄸ 쌍디귿 ssangdigeut(tʼ-/-t̚) - Duration: 0:31. For more infomation >> [basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어공부 ♥Leçon1♥ alphabet coréen - consonnes et-ㄸ 쌍디귿 ssangdigeut(tʼ-/-t̚) - Duration: 0:31. -------------------------------------------
Contre l'intimidation : AGISSONS! - témoignages - Duration: 1:39.
For more infomation >> Contre l'intimidation : AGISSONS! - témoignages - Duration: 1:39. -------------------------------------------
[basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어공부 ♥Leçon1♥alphabet coréen - consonnes et ㄲ 쌍기역 ssanggiyeok (kʼ-/-k̚) - Duration: 0:31. For more infomation >> [basique]★étudier le coréen 한국어공부 ♥Leçon1♥alphabet coréen - consonnes et ㄲ 쌍기역 ssanggiyeok (kʼ-/-k̚) - Duration: 0:31. -------------------------------------------
F/GO Halloween Comeback!- Main Story Quests (Day 2): The Thief, The Pharaoh, and The Sweetness Devil - Duration: 34:33.
Okay. Time for Day 2 of Halloween Comeback!
They seem well along...
I don't know much about Nitocris and her history.
But seems like she is an air-head...
This is easy...
Let's get Medusa this time.
Let's do this!
Ha, funny when she mentioned Ozymandias
who will fight the sphinx that she borrows from him.
Again, not much about Ozymandias that I know.
I didn't learn Egyptian myths.
What? Only 87K?
That's weak!!!
Well, that was quick...
I'm being honest:
I really want to laugh because of the story,
But I don't want you guys to hear me laughing in an exotic way.
And that is chapter 4!
Let's move to chapter 5.
Okay, we can only chose Ibaraki.
Let's get Saber Lily.
Let's get another Saber.
I don't have another strong Saber...
Oh well, doesn't mater...
Let's get Cú Chulainn instead.
Ibaraki is so cute...
as long as she is fed with sweets...
I really want to laugh when Robin threw chocolate into her mouth.
Also when he tricks her to help the crew, as well.
The main quests somehow are very easy...
I finished four quests within 30-min.
HA HA HA...
This is the only way to tell that I am laughing in real life...
Okay, there is no more quest for today.
That's it for this video, guys.
Thank you for watching!
Please Like and Subscribe to my channel
for more F/GO contents.
I need to farm gold bags for my CRYSTALLIZED LORE!!!
Alright, guys, Day 2 is finished.
I will post Day 3 tomorrow.
Until that time, I will farm more gold bags for my Lore.
Well, I hope you guys enjoy this video.
And I'll se you in the next one, Bye!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment