Browsing Tag: education

    A Bridge Between the USA and Russia
    Articles, Blog

    A Bridge Between the USA and Russia

    August 15, 2019


    The relationship between the USA and Russia is complicated. JFK: “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile, launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States.” *Intense laughter* JFK: “We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Their rivalry defined the second half of the 20th century. Reagan: “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall.” Millions are spent each year trying to improve relations, and even more spent undermining them again. To many their opposites; chalk and cheese, vodka and apple pie, Oceania vs Eurasia, East vs West. It’s easy to forget that only 51 miles separates them. If we’re going to spend so much time, energy and money trying to build bridges between Russia and America, then why not just build an actual bridge? In 1986 Ronald Reagan gave engineer Tung Yun Lin a National Medal of Science, Lin handed back to him a 16-page plan for an intercontinental peace bridge. Whether for environmental, financial, or political reasons a bridge across the Bering Strait has been on someone’s agenda ever since. Most of this talk has come to nothing, but in 2015 Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping started to make some actual plans. *Theme music* The Bering Strait is a 51 mile sea passage separating Siberia and Alaska. In 1867 the US bought Alaska for 7.2 million dollars or 2 cents an acre. This created a new border right down the middle separating two small islands, Big Diomede (Russian), and Little Diomede (now American). The same boundary is followed today by the International Date Line, giving the Diomedes the adorable nicknames of “Tomorrow Island” and “Yesterday Isle”. Ever since the Cold War Big Diomede and most of Russia’s Eastern Shore has been a military zone. No travel is permitted. In fact, you can’t arrive or depart there even with a Russian visa. The closest you can get is the port of Provideniya, and even then you should probably get permission before rocking up. This hasn’t stopped people trying though, in 2006 Karl Bushby and Dimitri Kieffer navigated the strait’s ice floes on foot. However Lynne Cox swam between the Diomedes in 1987, The public support was so immense that Reagan and Gorbachev thanked her at the signing of the nuclear forces treaty. Gorbachev: “It took a daring American girl by the name of Lynne Cox a mere two hours to swim the distance separating our two countries, By her courage she showed how close to each other our two peoples live.” Trump: “We’re not gonna let them violate a nuclear agreement, and go out and do weapons. So we’re going to terminate the agreement. We’re gonna pull out.” We could really do with another Lynne Cox right now. Something to bring the US and Russia together. The whole world a little closer. Even if it has to be marketed to us as a trade deal or a “Trans-Pacific Infrastructure Investment”. A bridge would be a common project, a physical link forcing superpowers to cooperate. But ignoring all political and financial hurdles for now. Is it even possible? Currently the world’s longest sea bridge is 34 miles across, Connecting Hong Kong to Zhuhai and Macau in China. And although the Bering Strait is 51 miles, the longest bridge you’d actually have to build would only be 26. The Diomedes make two perfect stopping points. You could build a US bridge on one side and a Russian bridge on the other. In fact, make it a race the loser has to build the three-mile bridge connecting the two. Construction would be slow, for seven months of the year the temperature is well below freezing, and although the Strait rarely freezes large chunks of ice are funneled through the passage from the Arctic. These ice floes would exert enormous pressure on any structure we built. There may be engineering solution around this, but perhaps the simplest would be to scrap the bridge and dig a tunnel. Tunnels may not lend themselves to metaphors as well, but they’re warmer, often cheaper over long distances, you can lay gas, oil, and electricity alongside. They’re protected from harsh weather, and ships can still pass above them. With the Arctic ice caps melting, the Bering Strait could become a very busy shipping lane in the next 20 years. The Strait is relatively shallow, the maximum depth is only 55 metres. The Channel Tunnel is a hundred metres below sea level. That opened in 1994 connecting the UK to Europe, and that relationship is going swimmingly. A tunnel (unlike a bridge) doesn’t have to intersect the Diomedes, it can start and end at more convenient points. But therein lies the problem. There are no convenient points. Here’s a map of the Alaskan and Siberian road networks, the closest highways are 2,000 miles apart. In Russia anything east of Magadan is impossible to get to by car. And although there are plans for major Alaskan routes, anything west of Fairbanks is tricky. Tunnelling under the Bering Strait would be the easy part, you’d also have to build thousands of miles of roads, over rough terrain, in incredibly harsh conditions. And after all that you’ve still got to persuade people to drive it. The only sensible option would be a train. You’ll still face all the same obstacles during construction, but a warm high-speed railroad from Anchorage to Vladivostok is way more convenient than a 60 hour drive through the Arctic. The main use of such a railroad would be freight. If we extend the network through North America and into China, it could transport a significant amount of the world’s cargo. But now we’ve got one of the biggest engineering projects in the world, costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Is there a need for it? An Arctic railroad would have to compete with our existing freight network, boats and planes. The busiest shipping route in the world by cargo is China to North America. So let’s say we want to ship one metric ton between the two busiest ports, Shanghai to Vancouver. We’ve got four options; ship, air, rail ,and road. A boat can do it in 15 to 20 days, cost us $300, and produce 225kg of CO2. Plane: 1 day, $3,500, 4,400kg. A train: 2 to 4 days, $400, 630kg. And a truck: 7 to 10 days, $900, 1,050kg. If speed is the priority and money no object, a plane is the way to go. But if speed doesn’t matter and you want the best value for money then shipping is the clear winner. Ships and planes account for 90% of global trade, that is a lot of fuel being burned all day, every day. Diesel trains are not environmentally friendly, but both Alaska and Siberia have stores of untapped geothermal energy. We need to replace as many major transport routes as possible with renewable alternatives, and high-speed electric trains are one of them. There’d definitely be a market for an Arctic railroad, it would dramatically improve travel time without an enormous increase in price. Whether it would be profitable for whoever built it though is another matter. It would have to be a financier with very deep pockets, and probably an ulterior motive. That pretty much leaves three options; Russia, America, or China. China are building railways and shipping ports everywhere. They’re already building high-speed railways connecting Europe, Africa and Asia. All with China as the central hub. They don’t just want to be at the crossroads. They want to be the crossroads, for all future international trade and transport. That means North and South America are definitely on the agenda. In fact, they proposed a high-speed railway connecting china to the US in 2007. Putin has given China approval to build through Siberia. And then in 2015 China and Russia announced they were collaborating, to build the Siberia and Alaska passage together. This is mostly just talk, but it’s getting louder and more frequent. There’s a reasonable chance of it happening with or without US involvement. It would be a real shame if multiple countries didn’t cooperate on this project. Not to mention the dangerous power dynamic it could create. An Arctic railroad connecting China, Russia, and the US would be an amazing achievement. An opportunity for three superpowers, currently jostling for their place in the century, to collaborate on a common project. One that could genuinely improve the world, environmentally, financially, and politically.

    If You’re Broke Or Struggling Financially, Follow These Steps To Change Your Financial Situation
    Articles, Blog

    If You’re Broke Or Struggling Financially, Follow These Steps To Change Your Financial Situation

    August 15, 2019


    – Hey, this is Stefan from projectlifemastery.com,
    and in this video I wanna talk to you about how to change your financial situation. So if you’re watchin’ this right now and you’re
    broke and you’re struggling financially, then this is probably one of the most important
    videos for you to watch. I really hope that you watch this to the end,
    you watch it again and again, and most importantly, that you actually apply what I’m gonna share
    with you, the advice, the recommendation, and the steps that I’m gonna advise for you
    to do, because a lot of what I’m gonna share with you are things that might be different
    that what you’re doing right now. And that’s a good thing, because if you’re
    broke and struggling financially then what you’re doing right now is not working, ’cause
    what you’ve been doing has gotten you into a financial situation where you can’t afford
    something or you can’t invest in yourself, or you can’t, you have to say no to certain
    opportunities that come up that can change or improve your life for the better. And so you should never be in that situation
    to begin with, because if you’re broke and struggling and you can’t afford things or
    you don’t have money, and I get a lot of people that send me messages and emails and they
    say, “Stefan, I’d love to invest in this course, I’d love to change my life, I’d love to do
    this or that”, but they can’t because they don’t have money. They can’t afford it. And that’s sad, because like I said, you’re
    missing out on a lot of opportunities that could then improve and change your life for
    the better. You’ve always gotta be prepared for that because
    there will be opportunities that arise that you’ve gotta have the financial means to be
    able to utilize and take advantage of, especially if you wanna maximize your potential, create
    financial abundance, build a business, create a certain lifestyle for yourself. So if you’re broke and you’re struggling,
    then it’s telling you a few things. Number one, maybe that you’re young, in which
    case it might be acceptable not to have money, because when you’re young you haven’t yet
    accumulated enough years of work to be able to save money and put money aside. You know, if you’re 16 years old and you’ve
    never had a job before, then yeah, it makes sense why you wouldn’t have any money. But if you’re in your 20s, if you’re in your
    30s, if you’re in your 40s or 50s or 60s and you’re still broke, you still don’t have money,
    you still can’t afford, you know, little things to invest in yourself, to improve your life
    or whatever it might be, then that’s tellin’ me you’re doin’ something wrong. You’re either making money, hopefully you
    are, right, I assume you are, if you actually have internet connection, you’re watchin’
    this video right now, you have a smartphone or if you have a computer, you know, you’re
    obviously making some amount of money to be able to support, you know, and survive and
    have a certain lifestyle. It might not be what’s ideal for you right
    now, but you’re either making money but you’re not managing it properly. You’re just livin’ month to month, paycheck
    to paycheck. You’re not actually havin’ a positive cash
    flow, and you’re not saving your money, you’re not putting it aside, you’re not making smart
    decisions with your money. And if that’s the case, we’ve gotta address
    that because giving you more money is not gonna then solve your money management issues. You have to first learn how to manage money,
    ’cause if you can’t manage a dime out of a dollar, you’re not gonna manage, you know,
    $100000 or $1 million if you don’t first start and learn how to manage with a small amount
    of money. Or it’s also telling me that you’ve made some
    poor decisions financially that have gotten you into a situation of not having money,
    of being broke or whatever it is. And maybe you made some poor investment decisions,
    maybe you’ve, you know, filed for bankruptcy, maybe you’ve gotten a lot of debt, right? And again, you should not be in those situations
    to begin with because you should never invest all of your money into something. You’ve gotta have the money management IQ
    and skills to know that you’ve gotta have savings, you gotta have an emergency fund,
    and you’ve gotta make sure that you’re educated on how to manage money. And I’m doing this video because, again, a
    lot of people send me messages and tell me, “I don’t have money, I don’t have money”. And, you know, this is a video that I’m gonna
    send people to whenever they say that to help ensure they get on their feet financially
    so they’re not in that situation again. So again, I really hope that you actually
    have an open mind because some of what I’m gonna share with you, you’re not gonna maybe
    like because it is gonna require a change in thinking, a change in behavior, a change
    in habits if you wanna get yourself out of the situation that you’re in right now. It’s gonna require you takin’ responsibility
    because, whether you like it or not, if you’re struggling, if you’re broke financially, there’s
    no one else to blame for that but yourself. And I hate to say that, but that’s the first
    step of anything. You’ve gotta take ownership and responsibility,
    ’cause as long as you’re blaming someone else, you’re not gonna have the power to change
    it. The moment that you take on the responsibility
    for whatever’s happened to you financially, and you take on that ownership, that responsibility
    for your life being the way that it is, whether, you know, maybe you’ve been in a marriage
    and you got divorced, you got screwed over, well you’re still responsible for that because
    you’re the one that chose that partner, that made the decisions that have gotten you to
    that point that you might be in right now. So taking responsibility, ownership, that’s
    what gets the power back in your hands to actually do something about your situation
    and make those changes. As long as you’re blaming others and it’s
    because of the economy or my boss or my former employer or my business partner or whatever
    it is, again, as long as you’re blaming, you have no power. You have no ownership or power to change your
    situation to be able to get yourself back on track. So accept the fact that whatever decisions
    that you’ve made, and maybe not even your conscious decisions, but whatever you’ve attracted
    in your life, and I’m not sure if you believe in the law of attraction, but you attract
    and you manifest things into your life based on who you are and how you show up, your mindset,
    your attitude. You know, oftentimes people attract negative
    people into their life, they attract scarcity, they attract problems and drama because that’s
    what they’re puttin’ out there. You know, you attract what you put out, and
    you get comin’ back to you. So takin’ that responsibility is really the
    first step, alright? Now, let’s talk about what you would do if
    you’re broke and struggling financially. And by the way, this is advice that I would
    give myself, because there was once a time in my life where I was broke and I was struggling
    financially, I was living on my friend’s couch. I had credit card debt, you know, I was barely
    survivin’, and I was able to get myself out of that situation to where I am today, at
    31 years old being a multi-millionaire. And it’s because of these steps that I went
    through, and I wish I knew them a lot earlier because I would’ve gotten myself out of that
    situation a lot faster, and the reason why I was in that situation was because of the
    decisions that I made. And it wasn’t ’til I took that ownership,
    that responsibility, I said, “You know what, I got no one else to blame but myself. You know, I’ve made these decisions, and now
    I’m the only person that’s gonna be able to change this and I can’t expect anyone else
    to pull me out of this”. So I created a plan for myself that would
    get myself out of that situation to be able to change my life for the better, and that’s
    what I wanna share with you guys. So I’m gonna write this out for you and give
    you guys a few different steps of what I would do and what I would recommend for you guys. So the first thing, the first thing you need,
    you need a vehicle for making money, ‘kay? A vehicle for making money. And a vehicle in the sense of a job, a business,
    or whatever that might be, for making immediate short-term money, okay? So for a lot of you that are watchin’ this
    right now, you’re broke, you’re strugglin’ financially, my number one answer to you would
    be get a job. Okay? Get some sort of vehicle that can immediately
    start making you some money. And I don’t care what that is, but it has
    to be something that can provide for you immediately. So a lot of people, you know, come to me and
    say, “Stefan, well I don’t have any money, so I’m gonna start a business”. And oftentimes, that’s the worst thing for
    you to do because a business is not like a job, where a job you get paid for the hours
    that you put in. A business is something that you’re putting
    in time, you’re putting in energy, you’re putting in money into something, but you’re
    not getting paid back immediately for it. Really what you’re getting is you’re investing
    into something that has the potential to pay you back in the future. So a business, for most people, is not the
    solution to this. Before you start a business, I actually recommend
    that you have a job and you learn how to manage some money so that you can actually start
    your business with some money that you can then invest in your business. You can invest in the right training, the
    right education, and really start it off the right way so that you can really succeed and
    prosper the best way possible. So the vehicle would be, you know, getting
    a job. It could be a business if you already have
    one, but again, that’s only something that’s already providing you money. Immediate cashflow is what you need, okay? You’re not gonna get rich quick, alright? If you think that, “Hey, you know, if I buy
    this course or if I start selling on Amazon, whatever, next month, the next 30 days, I’m
    gonna make all this money and solve my financial situation”. It’s not gonna work like that. It can take a long time before you really
    start makin’ money in a business, and especially to profit from it. So keep that in mind and understand that. Now, you might already have a job, you might
    already have a business. The business could even be like a freelance
    business where you’re getting paid, maybe you get some clients and you’re doin’ some
    freelance work and you’re gettin’ paid for every job that you do or every contract, great,
    okay. But that is something that you need, and if
    you don’t have a job, you gotta get one, okay? And beggars can’t be choosers, so I don’t
    care if it’s workin’ at McDonald’s, I don’t care if it’s, whatever that you can get for
    now, no matter what amount of money that it pays, take that as a way for you to make immediate
    money, okay? And especially if you’re in that situation
    where you’re, you know, broke and struggling, you’ve gotta get something going. And it might not be what’s ideal. That’s okay, but at least get a job. If it’s at McDonald’s, great. You’re makin’ minimum wage. Do that, but simultaneously, maybe you could
    be looking for a better job and a better opportunity that could make you some more money that is
    more ideal for, you know, being able to help yourself get on your feet financially. So that’s what I would do. I know for myself, I did physical labor, I
    did construction work when I was broke and I was struggling. And I hated every minute of it, you know,
    havin’ to go on job sites, and I was doin’ demolition work, I was doing insulation in
    buildings and drywall and painting and all those things that, you know, I’d have to get
    on the train and go an hour at six o’clock in the morning, and I’d get, you know, be
    covered in sawdust and dirt, and you know, I’d be all day working, physically exhausted,
    and then I’d come all the way back home on the train, and I’d repeat that same cycle
    every single day. And the benefit of doing physical labor was
    I was actually able to make a little bit more money. I think I was making about $20 an hour, because
    you can often get more for doing trade-type work like that. And that was perfect for me because it allowed
    me to have a vehicle to make money, it allowed me to put money aside, to save money and help
    myself get back on my feet financially. So when getting a job or a business, whatever
    it is, the main goal is to make money. It’s not doin’ your passion, it’s not doin’
    what you love or anything like that. It’s just primarily to get yourself out of
    the situation that you are right now, to get yourself back on your feet financially. I know a lot of people, what they do, a lot
    of friends, that they’d go out and they’d work on the oil rigs. You know, there’s oil rigs here in Canada,
    different parts of the world. They’d go out, it’s brutal, tiring, exhausting
    work, but they make a lot of money by doing it, and they’re doing it maybe for a few months
    so that they can make a lot of money and then be able to quit or they get some time off. They then take that money and they’re back
    on their feet financially, they can make some smart decisions and not have to go back to
    that. So understand, you are gonna have to make
    a sacrifice. And it’s a short term sacrifice, it’s small
    price to pay, but you know, this what you’re gonna have to do to get yourself out of the
    situation that you are in financially. Now, if you’ve already got a job and it’s
    still not enough for you, maybe you have to get a second job, maybe you’ve gotta get a
    third job. Maybe you’ve gotta start lookin’ for jobs
    that can pay you some more money, okay? And it’s not that hard to get a job. So I don’t wanna hear an excuse or a story
    or a reason about why you can’t do it. There are 16 year old kids getting jobs. There’s billions of people around the planet
    that have jobs. So if they can do it, you can too, okay? You have to learn how to be resourceful. You have to learn how to, you know, figure
    things out and have that persistence, have that drive, and say, “You know what, I’m gonna
    go out and get a job, I’m gonna add value to another business, another company, or I’m
    gonna improve myself so that I have more value that I could then provide to a business or
    a company to make more money”. Maybe you’ve gotta improve your skills, okay? Maybe you’ve gotta improve your value in order
    to get paid more money with it, okay? But whatever you can get for now, start there. You have to have an immediate source of income. That’s step number one. Nothing else I can share with you is gonna
    work for you unless you have that, okay? Step number one. Step number two, is you have to learn how
    to manage your finances. ‘Kay? You have to learn how to manage it, because
    here you’re making money, but what you do with that money is really the most important
    thing. Now, for a lot of people, they make money,
    again, if you’re watchin’ this right now, you probably have a job, you probably have
    some sort of stream of income in your life. But if you have that and you’re still not
    able to save money or invest in money, or you just don’t have money to put aside or
    do certain things with, then that’s telling me that number two’s your problem. You’re not managing your money properly. You don’t manage the money that you have. Well, you know, maybe you make $2000 a month
    but you’re spending all $2000 per month for your lifestyle in order to live, or maybe
    it’s $5000 or $10000, whatever the number might be. Maybe it’s $1000. Whatever that is, if you can’t afford to save
    money and put it aside and you’re livin’ month to month, paycheck to paycheck, then that’s
    tellin’ me, again, that you’re not managing your money and you’re not making sacrifices. You’re actually living above your means or
    on par with the amount of money that you make, and not below. So here’s the key when it comes to managing
    your finances. I’ll give you a few keys, actually. Number one, you’re gonna track, so number
    one, you’re gonna track your income and your expenses, ‘kay? You’ve gotta know this. I used to have a ritual where, every single
    week, so I’d pay everything through credit cards or my debit card, and then what I would
    do is, every single week, I would go through my bank accounts, I’d go through my credit
    card statements, and I would keep a spreadsheet. And in that spreadsheet, I would track my
    income for that week, for that month, I would track that in the spreadsheet, and then I’d
    also track all of my expenses. And I’d just go through my bank statements,
    my credit card statements, and I’d categorize it into different areas. So I would categorize and say, “Okay, this
    is what I’m paying for my expense of my rent every month, this is what I’m paying for my
    car payments or my bus pass or my gym membership or my cell phone or my internet or my utilities
    bill or entertainment or eating out or groceries or food”. All that stuff, I would track it. And by doing that every single week, it would
    help me learn to see where I’m spending my money and ensure that I’m actually spending
    less than what I’m making, less that what I earn. So you have to have the awareness, ’cause
    that’s really what tracking does for you. It gives you awareness, it gives you power. You feel empowered that you know where your
    money is going. And that changed my life, just by doin’ that. Because what I was doin’ before is I wasn’t
    tracking, and so I’d end up spending more than what I was making and I’d put that on
    credit cards, and then before you know it, I was in debt. And when you’re in debt, it can be harder
    to get yourself out of that situation, especially if it’s high-interest debt. So tracking is something you gotta do. And, you know, it should be pretty easy for
    you to do, you know, ’cause probably, right now you don’t have that many income streams
    or that many expenses. You know, for me, as my life has grown, now
    I’ve got thousands of income streams and expenses, ’cause I run multiple businesses, and I need
    a bookkeeper to help me with all of that. But this is something you can do yourself. Set up the spreadsheets for it. Track, know exactly where you’re money’s goin’. Now, once you know what your income is, what
    your expenses are, you’re gonna have to budget. You are gonna have to make sacrifices, as
    I said. That means you’re gonna have to cut out expenses,
    because if you’re livin’ month to month, you’re doin’ something wrong. That might mean, you know what, you’ve gotta
    downgrade. You’ve gotta downgrade your home, ’cause a
    lot of you might be living in homes that you can’t afford. One thing I had to do, like I said, is I moved
    in with my friend and I lived on his couch in his living room, on his futon. And I paid $300 a month for that as a way
    to save money, to make a sacrifice. Now, did I enjoy that? No. That was embarrassing for me. I was single, I was dating, I was embarrassed
    to bring, you know, a girl home and show her where I was staying. It was very humbling for me. You know, I had to admit to different people
    and stuff that I was struggling, because I couldn’t afford to live on my own. Another point, in my 20s I had to move back
    in with my mom, you know, and just try to save some money, or get myself back on my
    feet for a few months. Did I want to do that, no. Was that embarrassing, yes. But I was willing to pay that price. I was willing to make that short-term sacrifice
    because I was focused long-term on where I wanted to be, and that’s what I had to do
    to get myself out of that situation that I was in financially. You might have to sell your car. I had a beat-up Honda Civic for a number of,
    like 1989 Honda Civic that was like $1500, that I had it for. It actually had to sell that at a certain
    point and just take the bus, ’cause I can get a bus pass for like $70 a month. And I just took the bus everywhere. And did I want to do that, no. I’d much rather have a car. But I had to. I was, again, focused long-term on where I
    wanted to go, and I was willin’ to make those sacrifices. You know, I had to cut out my Netflix subscriptions,
    I had to cut out, you know, got rid of my TV and my video games and all those things
    because I learned that a TV is an electronic income reducing machine. The more time you spend just watching TV,
    you’re missing out on opportunities that could then make you money. So I got rid of my TV, I got rid of things
    that weren’t supporting or helping me create the life that I wanted and to get to where
    I wanted to go. And you might have to do that. You might have to sell stuff, too. I’m sure you have a lot of stuff that you
    could probably sell, whether that’s clothing, technology, gadgets, things that you’re not
    really utilizing in your life that could help you get yourself back on your feet financially. So sacrifices is key. Making a budget, sticking to that budget is
    very, very important. Now, I’m not sure if you watched a video that
    I did on my YouTube channel on money management. And inside my Life Mastery Accelerator program,
    I go more into money management, investing, I’ve got a really in-depth that video on that,
    on how to invest your money and whatnot. But one the things that I shared that I actually
    learned from T Harv Eker is how to allocate your money. And this is a good formula for you to start
    with. This is what I did for myself. And if you want to, you could even modify
    it based on your circumstances. But this is just a good template, a formula
    for you to follow. So when it comes to managing finances, whatever
    amount of money you make, again, you gotta track that, you gotta know what it is. Here’s how you’d wanna allocate it. You’d wanna put 55% of whatever you make to
    necessities, ‘kay, necessities. Necessities are your rent, your home, your
    utilities bill, your food, your groceries, your car, your transportation, all that sort
    of stuff. That’s your necessities. 55%. Now, a lot of people, they’re putting 100%
    of what they make to necessities. Huge mistake. You’re not gonna be able to get yourself out
    of the situation that you’re in financially if you’re doing that, because then you’re
    just month to month, not getting ahead. You’re just running the rat race, as they
    call it. So 55% to necessities. And then you wanna put 10% to long-term savings. ‘Kay, long-term savings. This has to be a priority. You have to save money, you have to put money
    aside. And ideally what you wanna do is you wanna
    build up a reserve, an emergency fund. That why you should never be in a bad situation
    financially because, you know, oftentimes people are in those situations because they
    didn’t put aside an emergency fund, they didn’t have savings. This is something that you don’t spend. It’s something that you reserve for financial
    crisis, for an emergency, a rainy day. You’ve gotta have that money you put aside
    for that. So 10% of what you make, you gotta put towards
    that. And ideally you wanna build it up to six months
    of whatever your expenses or income is. Have six months of your monthly income or
    whatever put aside and saved for an emergency, okay? So you gotta make sure you have that. That’s to avoid, you know, in times where
    you might lose your job, and in times where somethin’ might happen, you gotta make sure
    you got that money put aside for it. You gotta prepare for those things. Next, 10% you need to put aside for what is
    called financial freedom. ‘Kay, a financial freedom account. This is for opportunities to invest, to create
    financial freedom, financial abundance in your life. This could be investing in stocks or cryptocurrencies
    or in an online business. Some sort of vehicle that can then make you
    more money in the future and help ideally make you passive income, passive residual
    income that can then be on autopilot to continuously make you more money. So you gotta put money aside to that for your
    future, to invest in yourself. Another 10% you’ve gotta put towards education. You’ve gotta invest in yourself, because how
    are you gonna really change your life if you don’t have the financial means to invest in
    yourself, to learn from others, to invest in seminars, training, courses, coaches, and
    mentors. That’s really what’s gonna get you to financial
    prosperity. That’s what did it for me is when I realized,
    “Okay, you know what? If I just keep livin’ in the rat race, I’m
    not gonna get ahead. I’ve gotta educate myself and learn, and by
    putting money in here, you learn what to do with the money to create financial freedom”. You know? So I started learning about online business
    and selling on Amazon and all the different things to build my business to where it is
    today, and I still do. I put an excessive amount of money into this,
    and in doing so, it helps me create more financial freedom, and also improve my lifestyle in
    other parts of my life as well, ‘kay? So you gotta put money aside for education,
    for courses, for trainings, or whatever that might be. And then another 10% you’re gonna put towards
    fun. ‘Kay? So you gotta have some fun. You’ve gotta enjoy yourself. And oftentimes, you’re gonna get more fun
    out of your life by putting money aside and then being strategic about how you wanna use
    that money. You know, a lot of people just, month after
    month, they’re just spending their money goin’ to the bar, you know, goin’ to the club and
    drinking and alcohol. And they can’t afford that, that’s not an
    intelligent way of using that money for fun. Maybe there’s some other things you could
    do with that that are really more fun than just goin’ out and drinkin’ every weekend. So you gotta make sure that you put money
    aside for fun. This is actually something, for me personally,
    I decided, you know, when I started doin’ this, I actually sacrificed this area significantly
    because I realized that I could get myself out of this situation of being in debt a lot
    faster by instead putting some of this money more to paying off my debt or using some of
    this 10% to more financial freedom or education. So that’s what I personally did. You know, I was willin’ to sacrifice this,
    but fun is also good because it rewards yourself. It helps you have a bit of balance in your
    life, too. So that’s up to you how you wanna modify it. And then the last 5% is to give, to contribute
    beyond yourself. And even if you don’t have money, I found
    this is extremely important because it trains yourself to live in a state of abundance,
    it trains your brain that there’s more than enough. And maybe for you it’s more than 5% or maybe
    it’s less. But I have often said, if you watch a lot
    of my videos, when you give, it’s not necessarily the amount as it is the habit. It could just be givin’ $1 to a homeless person
    on the street. But what you do with that is it really opens
    up your mind and it makes you feel good about yourself, and sure enough what happens is
    you attract more money, more wealth into your life. You know, oftentimes, people are so attached
    to the money that they’ve got, they’re so afraid of losing it or parting ways with it
    or investing it or whatever it is. And if you’re tryin’ to hold onto what you
    got and you’re closed off, then you’re not gonna be open to receiving more. It’s not ’til you’re open and you’re willing
    to part that attachment, you live in abundance, that’s where more wealth, more money, more
    opportunities flow your way. So having a habit of giving and contributing
    is extremely important. Again, it’s not about the amount, it’s the
    habit of it to train yourself to live in an abundant state, ‘kay? So this is a good formula for you to follow,
    ‘kay? Again, you can modify it a bit if you’d like. But the most important ones are savings, financial
    freedom, education. Those are the most important ones that you
    have to prioritize that you’re not prioritizing right now if you’re in the situation that
    you’re in. And this is a mindset shift more than anything
    else. You gotta shift your mindset. You gotta be more future and long-term thinking
    than the short-term. And you’re gonna have to make those sacrifices
    to make sure that you’re living well below your means, ‘kay? Very important. So I’ve already talked about managing finances,
    sacrifices. You know, and I also wanna really emphasize
    sacrifices, because this actually was a huge change in my thinking for me, because, you
    know, when I was tryin’ to get myself out of this situation, part of it was I wasn’t
    willing to make sacrifices. And I thought, “You know, I can have it all. I can live this, you know, balanced lifestyle,
    whatnot”. And I actually decided to interview a lot
    of people that were more financially successful than myself. And one of the things that I found out that
    was common throughout them is they all had to make sacrifices to get to where they’re
    at today. I remember even talking to my brother about
    this, who was very successful financially, at the time. And you know, I was talkin’ to him, and he
    actually, he used to work for my dad in the family business doin’ bathtubs, acrylic bathtubs,
    sinks, and showers. Physical labor stuff. And he had to live in the warehouse for a
    few years. And he lived in, like, in one of the offices
    and turned it into a little suite. And he had to live there and make that sacrifice
    to get himself out of debt and get himself back on his feet financially. I have a cousin who is fairly successful now,
    and he owned a gas station, a Petro-Canada gas station here in Canada, and he actually
    lived in the gas station for, I think, a few months or even a few years. And that was a sacrifice he had to make to
    be able to save money, to be able to, you know, do what I’m sharing with you guys here,
    you know, do this stuff. You know, I’ve had to do that. And most people that are ahead financially
    had to make a sacrifice. So that was just the reality. The sooner I was able to accept that reality,
    then it really freed me and empowered me a lot because I believed that, you know, I was
    doin’ this just short-term, but just really was confident in the plan that I had of where
    it was gonna take me and where I was gonna go in my life. So be willin’ to make those sacrifices, because
    part of getting what you want is knowing what you have to give up in order to have it. ‘Kay? So sacrifices, guys. I’ll give you another key here, guys, is you
    have to invest in yourself. Invest in yourself. And really, doing this here is really what’s
    allowing you to do number three. And like I said, it’s gonna be very hard for
    you to really change your life if you’re not able to invest in yourself. Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in
    the world has said the best investment you can make is not in a stock or a mutual fund
    or real estate, it’s in yourself. Investing in yourself. And I really believe this has been the key,
    the secret to getting to where I’m at right now. You know, I remember that time when I was
    living in my friend’s living room, and I was just, I was in credit card debt, I was tryin’
    to find ways to get myself out of that debt and get myself back on my feet financially. You know, I remember at certain times, I had
    a little bit more money, and with that money, I had the choice, I had the choice of either
    I could take that money and I could go and live on my own and put some of that money
    more into my necessities and I could get my own place and my own car, and I could, you
    know, upgrade my lifestyle, or I could take that money and I could invest in myself. And when I weighed my two options with it,
    I realized that what would get me further in my life is takin’ that money to invest
    in myself. So when I was in that situation, I invested
    in a coach. I invested in the 100 Day Challenge program. That’s the first time I ever did that, when
    I was in that financial situation. I remember I invested in going to a seminar
    in New York. And I had to fly all the way there and I had
    to find a roommate to stay with at the hotel in order to go to a seminar, because I realized
    that my life was not gonna change unless I was willing to invest in myself and do things
    differently that what I was doin’ before. Because what I was doin’ before was not workin’
    for me. I had to make changes in what I was doin’
    with my money. And I believed that investing in myself, then
    it would help me get to a position where I would be able to create more financial wealth,
    more financial abundance, I’ll be able to grow a business, be able to make more money,
    be able to get more promotions in a job if I wanted to or be able to get a higher-paying
    job. I recognized the importance of this. Now, lookin’ back, you know, a lot of people
    would say that’s crazy. You know, here’s Stefan, you’re broke, you’re
    struggling, you have this money, you could, you know, get out on your feet, you know,
    go and live in your own place, but you decided to take that money and invest in yourself
    instead. That was the mindset shift that changed everything
    for me, guys, when I was willin’ to do that. And what I found is I actually got so much
    value out of doin’ that because when I invested money in myself, I didn’t have a lot of money
    to invest. You know, I just barely scraped by. I had to be resourceful to be able to find
    a way to get that money to invest in myself. But what I found is when I invested in the
    training or the seminar or whatever that was, I got so much more value than anyone else,
    because it took me so much, that money that I invested was so valuable to me that I got
    really good results because I took it seriously. Now, often they say the more that you pay,
    the more that you pay attention. So I took my training, my education even more
    seriously. I applied everything that they said at the
    seminar or through the course. I went back through it again and again. I took a million notes in my journals, which
    I still have to this day. And I cherish those times because I just appreciate
    it so much ’cause it took me so much to do that that I just got so much more value because
    of it. So invest in yourself. And I’ll give you guys another key. I’m just gonna give you guys this and I’ll
    break it down. It’s to create wealth. You gotta now create a new vehicle for not
    just makin’ money but really what it is is a vehicle for financial freedom. For financial abundance, guys, because this
    vehicle right here might not get you there, you know? A job isn’t gonna create you freedom. You know, ’cause you’re trading your time
    for money, in that case. And so now you’re in a position where you
    can really look at creating wealth, you can look at an online business, you can look at,
    you know, investing in an online business and trainings, and really takin’ it seriously,
    and really build it up to where you want it to go, to create passive income for yourself
    and a certain lifestyle. Or you can take that and maybe creating wealth
    through learning how to invest in stocks or real estate or some other vehicle like that
    that again, has the potential to create financial freedom, passive income, financial abundance. So that’s really what you need to be able
    to focus on in order to get to where you wanna go. And when you’re creating this, what happens
    is now you’ve built the habits of managing your money, ‘kay, so now you know how to manage
    and you know what to do with this new wealth that you’re now creating here. But also, more importantly, because you’ve
    already been through this, you’ve struggled financially, then I know for myself, what
    I did is I made a decision that I’ll never again be in that position again. And I actually let the pain of where I was
    before to motivate myself to really change and make sure that I made smart decisions
    with my money, I invested it in the right things, things that would bring me more opportunity,
    more potential, more freedom, more of what I want in my life. More assets than liabilities. And that was a key thing for me is I actually
    believe that struggling financially, being in debt, the situation that I was in was actually
    a blessing. And if you’re in that situation now, you might
    not be able to see that just yet, but once you get out of it you’ll realize that it was. ‘Cause I’m so grateful for those times that
    I went, the years that I spent struggling financially because it really taught me how
    to manage money, it taught me how to be resourceful, it taught me how to be strong, it taught me
    now to be attached to materialistic things. It taught me to still be able to, you know,
    to create drive and hunger and be motivated and do what it takes to really change the
    situation that I was in. It also taught me how to add value, because
    often people struggle ’cause they’re only focused on themselves. But in order to really create wealth, you’ve
    gotta be able to find ways to add value. Because you’re only gonna get paid based on
    the contributions that you make. You know, if you’re workin’ for a businesses,
    you’re getting paid for the value that you’re providing to that business. If you’re selling a product or a service,
    you’re only gettin’ paid based on the value that your product or service provides. So you have to shift your mindset to be a
    giver, to add value, to create value and become more valuable, ’cause the more that you do
    that, the more wealth and more financial abundance you’re gonna create in your life. So this is, again, where you really wanna
    focus on building a business, you know? This is where, you know, a lot of people,
    for example, they come to me, “Stefan, I can’t afford to start a business, I can’t afford
    this course or this training that you might have”. Well, then you gotta start here and you gotta
    start here, and then when you’re here and you’re ready to take some of this money from
    your education and some of this money, now you’re ready for a course. Now you’re ready to build your business. Now you’re ready to really create that wealth
    and be able to do it the right way and fast-track it, accelerate it and get to where you wanna
    go. And oftentimes, you wanna do this while you
    still have a job. You don’t just wanna quit your job and then
    start a business, right? You start your business on the side, and you
    build it up to a point where it’s making you a positive cashflow and profit, in which case
    that you can then depend that your business will then support you. And then you can quit your job and work at
    this full-time. Because now this is dependable for you, it’s
    a reliable stream of income that you can then depend upon. And that’s what I did for myself. That’s what most people that I know have done,
    as well. And I think this is really the plan to change
    your financial situation for the better, to get to where you wanna go. And of course, investing in yourself might
    be reading books, goin’ to seminars, learning about finances, about money. You know, I’ve shared a lot of videos and
    stuff on my channel that can also help you with your mindset around this, but, you know,
    find books, find coaches, find courses and training programs and resources that can really
    help you get to where you wanna go. You know, that’s the key. You know, to this day, I’m still investing
    more money than I’ve ever invested in my life into my own education, into my own future,
    ’cause I believe in this. This is what’s gotten me where I’m at today. Why would I stop investing in myself? Why would I stop hiring coaches? I do that even more than ever before, ’cause
    I wanna continue to grow, and I wanna be able to continue to learn and become more valuable
    so that I have more value to provide. And I hope by doing that, by adding more value,
    the more money that I’ll make in the process, too. So this video has been fairly long, but I
    wanted to go more in depth, I wanted to share the mindset and the strategies that the steps
    that I took and that I would take if was startin’ over again. And it can hopefully help ensure that you
    get yourself back on your feet financially. And you know, you’re gonna have to, again,
    make that sacrifice here, but once you get here, you know, and you get that point, it’s
    a small price to pay because you’re gonna be able to live the rest of your life free. You’re gonna be able to live the rest of your
    life financially abundant, and you’re really not gonna have to worry much about money again. So if you have to go through this phase for
    a few years, it’s worth it. You know? You gotta, again, think long-term in your
    decision-making. And it might suck for a year or two years
    or three years, but, you know, once you get yourself out of that situation, now you’re
    on the fast track. And the fast track, the fast lane is what’s
    gonna, you know, it’s amazing how much your life will change once you’re there. So understand that you’re gonna have to go
    through this, and this is the path that’s gonna help you lead to where you wanna go. So listen, I wanna thank you so much for watchin’
    this video. Hopefully you enjoyed it. My Life Mastery Accelerator program goes more
    into finances and also investing money, too, if you wanna learn more in-depth strategies
    for that. But I wanna thank you. I wish you the best of luck. I believe in you. I know for a fact that you can change your
    financial situation, you just gotta have the right mindset, the right attitude about goin’
    about it. You’re in the right place. Just follow this plan, guys, to get out of
    the situation that you’re in and to get to where you wanna be. Thank you so much. Make sure to subscribe for more videos. Like this video, leave a comment, and I’ll
    talk to you guys again, soon. Take care.

    Should US immigration policy be changed? (1980) | ARCHIVES
    Articles, Blog

    Should US immigration policy be changed? (1980) | ARCHIVES

    August 14, 2019


    Announcer: From the nation’s capital, the
    American Enterprise Institute for public policy research presents, “Public Policy Forums,”
    a series of programs featuring the nation’s top authorities presenting their different
    views on the vital issues which confront us. Today’s topic, “Should US Immigration Policy
    Be Changed?” Peter: Is there a limit to how many immigrants
    this country can absorb without affecting American jobs, the economy and spending on
    federal services? If immigration is to be restricted, where do we draw the line? Who
    won’t be allowed in? Should we spend a fortune and stop illegal immigrants or just admit
    we can’t stop them and grant amnesty? Welcome to another Public Policy Forum presented by
    AEI, the American Enterprise Institute, a non-profit, nonpartisan research and education
    organization. Taking part in today’s panel are Harrison
    Schmitt who was a Republican senator from New Mexico. Senator Schmitt is a co-sponsor
    of a bill to grant temporary visas to migrant Mexican workers. He is a member of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee and the Senate Small Business Committee. Lawrence Fuchs is Chairman of the American
    studies department at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. Dr. Fuchs is on leave from
    that position serving as Director of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy.
    He is a recognized expert on ethnic and religious factors in American life. J. F. Otero is International Vice President
    of the Brotherhood of Railway Airline and Steamship Clerks. Mr. Otero who came to this
    country from Cuba at the age of 20 once served as the International of Transport Workers
    Unions’ director for Latin America. Michael Novak who is a resident scholar at
    AEI is the author of a syndicated newspaper column which often analyzes problems of ethnics
    in U.S. society. He is the author of the book, “The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics.” John Charles Daly will moderate the discussion.
    Mr. Daly has served as a top news executive, analyst and correspondent for CBS and ABC,
    and is a former head of the Voice of America. Now, here is Mr. Daly. John: This Public Policy Forum part of a series
    presented by the American Enterprise Institute is concerned with a major social problem brought
    anew to confrontation by the catechisms in Southeast Asia, the tides of immigration crisscrossing
    the Mexican-American border, the upheavals in the Caribbean in the ’60s and the ’70s,
    and the tragic immigrations from Cuba and Haiti in the early months of the ’80s. Our
    subject, “Should U.S. Immigration Policy Be Changed?” Our nation’s record on welcoming the tired,
    the poor, the huddled message yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of the teeming
    shore, the homeless, the tempest-tossed is spotty, but it is still very proud. It was
    a century after the Declaration of Independence in 1875 that the U.S. first restricted immigrants,
    barring convicts and prostitutes. In 1881, 1908 and 1917, the Congress acted against
    Chinese, Japanese and Asian Indians in that order. In 1921, quotas were established based
    on national origin, a system locked in by the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 and transparently
    biased to keep a lid on immigration and to give overwhelming priority to those of Anglo-Saxon
    and Nordic origins. Several bills watered down the McCarran-Walter
    Act during the ’50s and the early ’60s. And in the end after long and biting debate, the
    savage dislocation and a horde of displaced persons following upon World War II brought
    basic reforms in 1965. To replace quotas and Asian exclusion, preference based on unification
    of families and occupational skills with protection of the job market for Americans became the
    benchmarks. The new legislation also placed ceilings of 170,000 for the Eastern hemisphere
    with a maximum of 20,000 per country against an overall ceiling of 120,000 a year for the
    Western hemisphere, 17,000 places were reserved for refugees. Signing that new legislation in 1965 at the
    base of the Statue of Liberty, President Lyndon Johnson said, “It repairs a deep and painful
    flaw in the fabric of American Justice. The days of unlimited immigration are past, but
    those who come will come because of what they are, not because of the land from which they
    sprung.” The reforms began in 1965, were virtually
    completed in 1978. Legislation combined the two hemisphere ceilings into a single worldwide
    total of 290 and established a uniform preference system. The ’70s, however, produced new and
    agonizing problems that a patchwork of parole power and special legislation did little to
    solve. Under the hammer blows of that turbulent decade, it became clear that reserving 17,000
    places for refugees was unrealistic. In the past quarter of a century in fact,
    attorney generals alone have used that officers’ discretion and its powers, its parole power
    to admit more than a million refugees from Hungary, Cuba, the Soviet Union and other
    countries, and the Refugee Act of 1980 gives the president complete discretion on the admission
    of political exiles. And so, in the fall of 1978, a Select Commission
    on Immigration and Refugee Policy was established by the Congress. To begin, gentlemen, I would
    pose the same question to each of you in turn. What would constitute a humane and proper
    policy for immigration into the United States? As Executive Director of the Hesburgh Commission
    examining present policy, will you start, Dr. Fuchs? Lawrence: Well, I supposed a humane policy
    would be one that would add to some of humanity of decency in the world and in this country
    particularly. We, in the United States of America, are responsible for 40% of the world’s
    GNP, yet, I don’t suppose it’s realistic that we could take in over a short period of time
    40% of the world’s population. Knowing that there have to be some limits and that the
    number of places available are going to be smaller than what the demand is, the question
    becomes, “How do we determine how to allocate those scarce visas to the United States?” I supposed we can think of a humane policy
    as one which meets our goals if we have confidence in this country and I do. I believe that if
    the fundamental values of the nation, the fundamental goals of this country is set forth
    in our great documents, in our historic utterances by Jefferson and Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt
    and others. If they are to be fulfilled and met through an immigration policy, we ought
    to look carefully at goals which manifest our national interest. That means, something
    of a shift away from the kind of hodgepodge development that we’ve had in the past to
    a clear articulation of national interest goals and I think that’s the course that the
    commission has set for itself. I’ll say more about that later I’m sure. John: All right, Senator Schmitt? Harrison: John, I think, first of all, more
    and more, and more importantly we have begun to separate political immigration from economic
    migration, a very important distinction of any new humane or workable policy must have.
    In political immigration, I hope that whatever we develop and the Commission recommends,
    and the Congress eventually modifies as its wisdom will recognize that political immigration
    has been the basis of a great deal of what this country is, and that we should not do
    anything that eliminates that rejuvenation process in our own country, in our own heritage. In the case of economic migration, particularly
    that from Mexico and maybe other parts of Latin America, again, I think we have to recognize
    it is largely a true migration and that most such individuals who come to this country
    for economic betterment are temporary in their migration, and desire to remain Mexicans or
    other nationalities and not become Americans. And as long as our policies will recognize
    those two things that it’s a political immigration and an economic migration and in the latter
    case develop a temporary worker visa program or someway in which that can happen legally,
    I think we will have a humane and workable policy. John: Dr. Novak? Michael: I do think though picking up on these
    remarks that we’re likely to see in the future an increase in the number of those who seek
    to come to countries like the United States and we better be ready for that. My reason
    for saying that is that there is among human beings everywhere, a hunger for freedom and
    freedom is in short supply in the world. And it seems to me, looking at the future, that
    the number of societies which will permit liberty, economic liberty as well as political
    liberty is likely to shrink. And in that case, we can expect more and more persons over the
    years to migrate towards this few centers of freedom which will remain. Now, by freedom here, I want to be clear about
    the fact that, I mean, not just the seeking of opportunity by which one might better oneself,
    that’s very important, of course. But there’s also I think, other things being equal, a
    sheer satisfaction and living in the sort of society which allows you to keep what you
    earn, to spend it as you will and all those other sorts of freedoms which we come to have.
    Some population specialists have suggested that two-thirds of all the people who’ve ever
    lived are alive now. If that’s not the right figure, it’s something very close to that.
    That, too, I think suggest that we’re going to have a very special problem in the United
    States down the road. Given our past history with the question, I would say that in order
    to have a humane policy, we should err on the side of generosity. John: Mr. Otero? Joaquin: Mr. Daly, I support a policy for
    the United States that is consistent with our nation’s traditions of humane and compassionate
    people. As an immigrant myself, and very proud American Citizen, I sincerely hope and I will
    work for that America will remain the land of the free and the home of the brave, and
    that we will continue to remain a nation of immigrants. I believe that an immigration
    policy that is humane should foster family reunification above all. It should also provide
    a haven for those who seek refuge on political persecution, and that is a policy that takes
    into consideration the interests and the needs of American workers. Also, I sincerely hope
    that any type of a policy that is develop takes into consideration the questions of
    dealing fairly and equitably with the problem of both legal and illegal immigration into
    the country. John: Well, as you’ve noted, the immigration
    issue is now really two issues. What to do about the admission of legal immigrations,
    in the future? What to do about so-called, “Illegals,” here in uncertain numbers of millions
    and still coming? So, let’s look at the legal issue first. The Hesburgh Commission’s goal
    in Father Hesburgh’s words, Doctor, is to design a policy that will be generous, humane,
    non-racist, rational and workable. Does present policy fail in these areas substantiality? Lawrence: Well, it’s not workable. It’s out
    of control and there’s a very strong sense running in the public opinion right now that
    it is out of control. That has to do partly with the illegal immigration. The law is not
    enforceable and you have substantial number of persons who enter without inspection, without
    documents, and live in an underground economy to some extent and become an underclass to
    some degree. And they are exploited not only at the work place in some cases at the margin,
    but also are preyed upon by criminals. In some cases, they don’t report their health
    problems and they don’t even send children to school in some cases which is a very bad
    thing for the United States of America. So, it’s not working in that respect. It’s
    not working in another respect. The backlogs that we have accrued over a period of time
    are really quite enormous and, in fact, it’s gotten at the point where we now having fifth
    preference, the preference for brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, such explosive growth
    that it can double every year. It did double between ’78 and ’79 from 230,000 to over half
    a million. Those just who have been awarded visa numbers but can’t get in to the country
    because the backlogs are so great. So, it’s not clear that it’s workable. It’s
    not necessarily humane or equitable either because you have a rigid system, a rigidity
    in the immigration law in which a person who is a spouse, a wife or a husband, or a small
    child of a resident alien has to wait sometimes three, four, five or more years depending
    upon what country they happen to be petitioning from. Whereas, a specialty cook might get
    in from another country just like that because of our country’s ceiling system which is a
    rigid system. It puts the same country ceiling on a small country like Lichtenstein as we
    have on a large country such as India. So, it’s not workable. It’s not equitable,
    and Father Hesburgh has these other qualities, generosity. It all depends what you mean by
    generosity. Now, if you take, let’s say, the decade 1900 to 1910, at that time, that decade
    we averaged about 900,000 immigrants a year. We averaged about 400,000 a year in the decade
    of the 1970s. That constitutes less than 20% of our present population growth at a time
    when we’re growing at less than 1% a year. Now, it depends whether you’re looking at
    the donut or the whole if you want to call or characterize that as generous, well, compared
    to most countries in the world it’s quite generous. Compared to the decade 1900 to 1910,
    the United States of America, it’s not particularly generous. So, there it is. Now, on the issue of humanity
    and what I think the Commission have fairly well-decided at this point is that there are
    three clear immigration goals. One is, as Commissioner Otero said a moment ago, one
    is the reunification of families, but we need to clarify what we mean by the reunification
    of families and make the system work so that when we say we favor the immediate access
    to this country of the wives, the husbands, and the small children of persons who are
    here, that other people can’t leap ahead of them. We also, clearly, in the Commission accept
    that view that the United States will remain, as Mr. Otero said, a refuge for persons who
    have a well-founded fear of persecution in the countries that they’re leaving. The question
    here is, “How can you deal with expellees such as we have seen from Cuba?” Now, they
    don’t necessarily qualify under the definition of a refugee. One wants to be generous, but
    one wants to be equitable. One wants to have a law that’s enforceable, and then there’s
    a third goal that the Commission is seemed determine to meet, and that is to provide
    opportunity for persons who seek freedom and who seek opportunity of an economic kind. And here, Senator Schmitt, I think you’ve
    got an interesting distinction between the political immigrant and economic migrant.
    A fact of the matter is it’s not such a clear distinction historically although the distinction
    may be more clear in recent years. Harrison: It’s more clear now, I believe in,
    but you’re correct historically. But in terms of our relationships with Mexico, the distinction
    has maintained fairly sharp way through the decades and through the year. Lawrence: Well, one thing the Commission has
    under active consideration right now is whether or not the opportunity for economic well-being
    that so many people seek in the world and many come to the United States to seek it,
    whether or not that is not better provided by having them enter into the legal migration
    stream in a third category which meets U.S. goals for economic and cultural development
    rather than on a temporary worker or a guest worker basis. Harrison: Well, but you mentioned earlier
    that the process was out of control. It’s certainly I think, for all intents and purposes
    is out of control in the political immigration area, but the economy of the marketplace is
    controlling the migration of the now, what we call, “Illegals,” “the migrant.” Of course,
    I’m from New Mexico which sees a great deal of the flow, not all of the workers, but a
    great deal of the flow, and there’s no question that these people are moving in response to
    the job market in this country. A small percentage of them are in fact competing with U.S. workers,
    but the recent research by both in Mexico and in this country indicate very strongly
    that that level of competition is not nearly as high as been pictured by many. That most
    of the workers are moving across the border for the basic spring, summer, fall season
    to take those kinds of jobs that are characteristic to those seasons that Americans just aren’t
    seeking. And it looks as if the number like 85%, plus or minus 5% are those kinds of people. Lawrence: It’s always dangerous to argue with
    a United State senator, but… Harrison: That’s never. Lawrence: The research is so imperfect that
    what we find in this business, Senator, is that one can use research findings on either
    side of the argument. Many commissioners take the view that the United States should look
    in to the possibilities of a guest worker program which would be quite different than
    the old bracero program, but other commissioners take the view, and each one of them can marshal
    their economists and their research findings, although, generally speaking, your statement,
    if I understood it correctly, that the idea of severe economic competition or severe and
    widespread displacement has not been proven is correct, neither has opposite of that been
    proven. Harrison: It appears to be the most well-grounded
    academic research both in Mexico and here tends to support strongly the position that
    I have stated. There clearly has not been documentation that there is strong economic
    competition of this migrant. For one thing, most of them are incapable in terms of skill
    levels of competing with American labor. Not to mention the fact that American labor doesn’t
    have to fall below the safety net that we put beneath them. Michael: Senator, is the proposal you make
    that the bill you have to do this sort of thing, is that pretty much designed for Mexico
    then perhaps we should think of Mexico here for special sense? Harrison: It is very specifically designed
    for Mexico for a number of reasons. It’s conceivable that modified, it can become a model for other
    efforts. That Mexican problem is clearly one that has certain unique characteristic. So,
    2,000-mile common border for one thing and the impossibility with any reasonable cost
    of policing that border, of stopping the flow, and the inhuman nature of the attempts to
    stop it that at least so far have resulted in many case. John: What do you propose to do? Harrison: Basically, propose to recognize
    that the vast majority of these migrants are coming north in response to an economic crisis
    in their own lives. They come and stay only for the period of six to eight months that
    our normal working seasons for the semi-skilled, unskilled worker in this country and that
    they then return to Mexico, and the evidence I find very persuasive that this is in fact
    happening. The numbers are somewhere on the order of a million and a half, plus or minus
    500,000. That sounds like an awfully big plus or minus, but that one of the reasons we don’t
    know the level of the problem is because it’s illegal and you can’t really get your arms
    around it and find out how big it is. We would add one proviso in recognition of this significant
    but still small percentage of workers that compete with the American labor in the skilled
    areas, that if under certain guidelines, it can be demonstrated that at a particular work
    site, that American labor is available and willing to work, then that side can be declared
    off limits to the visa holder. John: Mr. Otero? Joaquin: First of all, I’d like to say that
    I am one of those commissioners on the Select Commission on Immigration on Refugee Policy
    who has made up his mind regarding the question of any attempt by any description to institute
    another bracero program in the United States. We are going to oppose with everything that
    we have, I’m talking about organized labor, any such program, a bracero program by any
    other name remains bracero program. Harrison: Well, if I could interrupt, it does
    not. John: Would you describe a bracero program
    for our audience? Joaquin: Well, a bracero program was something
    that was instituted in this country during the war days and brought about the importations
    of 400,000 foreign nationals to do primarily work in the agricultural fields of the Untied
    State. It was discontinued in 1964 and there has not been a similar program since although
    we have something call H2 program which is something under more control, but what I want
    to say is that you have issued a series of statement, Senator, that I wish you could
    furnish the Commission in terms of your research, the question that it doesn’t affect American
    workers. It does affect American workers when you have a large pool of people in this country
    who are exploitable. There are in this nation today by all estimates,
    approximately 6 to 8 million people unemployed. They don’t go back. They remain here because
    they have no place to go back, like you say, escaping from a tragedy of real economic difficulty
    at home and they come to the United States looking for the job opportunities. And from
    this particular human tragedy, many American employers benefit by using these people in
    tremendously low levels of employment and at the greatest exploitation possible. All I wish is that you could do is go with
    me to New York City or to Los Angeles, California and I’ll find you these people working in
    sweat shops like the likes have not seen in this country since the 1920s. They’re not
    working in the fields anymore. This 6 to 8 million people are competing across the spectrum
    of American skills today. They are in railroads. They are in the hotel industry. They’re in
    restaurants. They are in the garment industry. They’re everywhere and in very low numbers
    in the agricultural field. Harrison: Well, the facts just don’t support
    those kind of statement. There clearly are illegal migrants from Mexico in the kind of
    jobs that you described. I’ll not argue that, but the vast majority of them by modern research
    are in the agricultural area and in small businesses that otherwise would not be employing
    anybody. And the basic problem no longer is one of, “Can I get, as an employer, get a
    low-wage skilled person?” The problem is, “Can I get anybody to do that job?” Now, that’s why we build into this proposed
    legislation a way of protecting the skilled labor of America. The unskilled, semi-skilled
    workers are finding jobs that are not being taken by Americans and I think we have to
    recognize that fact. I think we also have to recognize that as long as they’re illegal,
    the exploitation that you decry, and I do also, is going to continue. The only time
    that exploitations going to cease is when they have a legal status that they’re not
    afraid of coming forward and saying, “I’m being exploited.” Lawrence: Why not go all the way and give
    them a green card, and give them…? Joaquin: Senator, this is what I am advocating. Harrison: Because they don’t want a green
    card. Lawrence: Why not? What’s the…? Harrison: They want to move back and forth
    across their border. They’re Mexicans. Lawrence: Well, a green card doesn’t keep
    you from… Harrison: Do you mean the H2 card? I’m sorry. Lawrence: No, resident alien, an immigrant.
    Most immigrants would come to United States historically really come to look around and
    even with some groups, of course, the return migration, the repatriation was really very
    significant. Historically, about 30% of the people who immigrated to the United States
    went back to where they came from. Some groups Italian, Southern Italians, the rate was even
    much higher. Harrison: And that appears to be about 90%
    in the case of the Mexican moving across the border. Lawrence: Well, not from the… Harrison: All the evidence, it’s anybody’s
    place in front of anybody says that’s the number. There’s has been not any contradict
    the evidence unless that… Joaquin: Senator, I’m not going to debate
    you here today on issues that you have your view point and I have my view point, and the
    facts do not warrant that 90% of them go back. The fact of the matter remains that at a time
    when we have more than 10 million Americans unemployed in this country, we have got to
    adopt the policy which is consistent with the interest of American citizens at the same
    time remaining our borders open. Now… Harrison: I couldn’t agree with you more. Joaquin: Let me finish my point. Harrison: That’s exactly the policy that we’re
    proposing. Joaquin: Let me finish my point. The question
    is, I understand what you’re trying to do, but I’m also trying to explain to you that
    there is a reality which makes it almost impossible for the American worker to have a bargaining
    power when he’s confronted with this large influx of low-wage exploitable people and
    the reason is very simple. Take the state of Virginia, for example, where the tobacco
    growers get together and in a monopoly type of a situation, they set the rate for picking
    tobacco at $3.10 an hour. And since they are the only ones that set the rate, the labor
    department is unable to say there should be any other rate. So, an American worker that
    wants to pick tobacco has to pick it for $3.10. He has no bargaining power with that employer.
    So, consequently, even if he lives far away from the point where the picking is going
    to be done, and he says, “Well, I need another 40 cents to pay for the high cost of gas or
    whatever, I will do it for $3.50.” The labor department cannot certify that wage. Harrison: So you see, that’s exactly what
    we’re trying to protect against in this bill. Joaquin: Well, okay, fine. Harrison: Where there is willing American
    labor then the work site would be off limits. That you have no such of means right now to
    declare that work site off limits. Joaquin: Yes, we have. The problem is that
    we have to change the immigration laws to provide for a genuine availability test of
    American workers. As it is today, that doesn’t exist. And naturally, a grower or an employer
    prefers to bring a group of people who are not wise about their rights in the United
    States and it makes it impossible for them to compete. Harrison: But that’s what we’re trying to
    change, Mr. Otero. That’s exactly what we’re trying to change. We’re trying to change the
    situation under which these workers are exploited. There’s no question about it and also protect
    the American worker in those situations exactly like you described. Joaquin: I don’t disagree with you. Harrison: Where they’re under this unfair
    competition. Joaquin: I don’t disagree with what you’re
    trying to do. What I’m trying to tell you that there are first things that come first.
    What we ought to do first in this country is to have amnesty across the board for all
    the people who are illegally in this country. Allow them to regularize their status. Harrison: What does that mean? What does amnesty
    mean? Does it mean five years we’re going to defer any deportation? Joaquin: It depends. I am against total, any
    type of mass deportation. I think this country cannot tolerate mass deportation. Now, whether
    we say one year or two years, or three years, that’s a question for the Commission to decide
    and making a recommendation to Congress and then it’d be up to you the legislation to
    decide. Harrison: Well, of course, my opinion is… John: Well, let me bring a point in here if
    I may. Don’t we need some hard numbers on how many illegals there are? You hear everything
    from a few million to 12 million to make any recent judgment on policy and how we’re going
    to get them. Harrison: You can’t until you legalize it. Lawrence: The problem is, Mr. Daly, and for
    the audience too, is that if you could count them, you could deport them. You can’t count
    them with the kind of accuracy position that we would like. There have been a great many
    ingenious studies which have tried to account them. They all depend on heroic assumptions.
    The methodologies can be quite ingenious. Now, in the Census Bureau Review for the Select
    Commission of all of the best of these studies, the most credible ones, it was determined
    by the three authors of that review, of that analysis, that at any one time in the year
    1979, there was no fewer than 3.5 million and no more than 6 million and that’s really
    what it amounts too. Harrison: And that lower estimate jives, speaking
    of only of the Mexican situation with the estimates of 1 to 2 million Mexicans, but
    that again is a heroic assumption that you know the percent. Lawrence: Senator, the other finding is that
    probably no more than half of the undocumented aliens in this country now are Mexican nationals. Harrison: Dr. Cornelius and others would say
    60%. Michael: So I’d like to broaden it beyond
    Mexico for us…? John: Yeah. Actually, I wish you would because
    I think we mustn’t freeze in on one geographic variant. Michael: First of all, as a theologian I find
    I don’t have to worry too much about numbers, you know, three persons in God, seven sacraments,
    few basic little numbers and make life a lot easier for me. But it does seem to me that
    irrespective of our special historical relationship with Mexico and the Mexican people, a naughty
    but I think a soluble problem, one soluble with good will and intelligence. It seems
    to be we’re going to be facing this tide of refugees coming, en masse, suddenly from different
    parts of the world and we’re going to have to gear up as a society in a way we haven’t
    for a long time, to think of ourselves again as a society of immigrants, suddenly besieged
    and we’re going to have to, I think, mobilize our private sector, the churches, the universities,
    business communities, the unions and so forth to be ready to receive such migrants. I’m
    almost certain that the ’80s are going to see one wave after another coming from God
    knows where, but Africa, Asia, Latin America. The world is so turbulent as one can see in
    prediction that that we’re just going to have to gear ourselves up to be ready on a crash
    basis to receive as needs to be. Harrison: John, I think Dr. Novak is entirely
    correct on this and I would add only that at the same time we gear ourselves for that
    influx, which is going to come at unpredicted times, we must also do those things after
    in the rest of the world through a coherent foreign policy that perpetuates two things.
    One, freedom and two, the economic developed of these countries that begin to reduce those
    push factors that exist out that cause such migration. Michael: And they go together. Harrison: It doesn’t mean the migration or
    immigration is going to disappear. It means that we have to be doing both things and they’re
    both imminently justifiable morally. Joaquin: Mr. Daly. John: Yes, Mr. Otero? Joaquin: I like to say that I don’t disagree
    with your bill in its entirety. What I am saying is that we need to attack the problem
    at hand in a combined effort. First of all, we need to do various things to attack the
    problem not just one single thing like providing additional job opportunities for people and
    to make sure that they’re not illegal in the country. We need to give amnesty in this nation.
    We need to curve the flow of illegal immigration into this country. And for that, we need to
    put the problem in this proper perspective and that is people come here because of the
    push factor and the pull factor, meaning that people don’t have a job at home, they come
    here looking for a job. We need to have sanctions on employers who
    knowingly hire illegal aliens. There should be criminal sanctions with injunctive relief.
    We should also have greater enforcement at the border. We should have enforcement of
    existing statues such as child labor laws, Fair Labor Standards Act. We need to provide
    economic assistance to other nations such as Mexico and other countries in Latin America
    to help them develop their own economies. We need to develop a number of other areas
    to curve this problem and to bring it to manageable proportions. We will never be able to stop
    illegal immigration into the United States. That is an impossibility if we are to remain
    a nation that is a democratic bastion throughout the world. We cannot conceivably mobilize
    the army or the air force, or any other service to seal the border. That is impossible, but
    we can, if we put our minds to it, bring about enough measures to be able to remain a nation
    that admits people legally. Yes, I’m in favor of increasing the number of people who enter
    the United State legally. Legal controlled migration. Yes, more refugees,
    but also taken into consideration that there are 14 million political refugees today in
    the world and that it would seem impossible that America could take them all at the same
    time. This is something that should be internationalized. Other nations of the world that share the
    same responsibility with us. Australia, Western Europe and so on, should also be participating
    in accepting the refugees, but in doing all this, we must always keep in mind that we
    have a responsibility to our own people especially at a time when our economic situation is not
    the best, when we have large number of people unemployed and the prospects for unemployment
    continue to grow higher. Those are the issues that should be taken into consideration in
    developing the humane policy that you were talking about. John: Well, let’s come to grips with one area
    that you raised. Representative Peter Rodino, in the early ’70s, proposed making it a crime
    for employers to hire illegals knowingly. The House reacted favorably. is my memory
    of it. The Senate did not. The Senate actively opposed the idea. Then in 1977, President
    Carter renewed the Rodino plan and coupled it with amnesty for illegals here before 1970,
    and a temporary status for those who arrive after that until 1977. The Congress has not
    been enthusiastic, although the President has renewed this proposal. So, what do you
    think of the plan, gentlemen? Harrison: John, I would just have to say that
    the reason I got involved in this, other than the interest that New Mexico has, I mean,
    very close to the border and culturally alive with Mexico, was the universal condemnation
    that the President’s renewal of these proposals we’re seeing. Sanctions and it was condemnation
    by Hispanic community not just by everybody else, all of whom I think have a great deal
    of common sense, but it was primarily by the Hispanic committee. Sanction means discrimination.
    Every employer is going to have to be concerned about, “Is that person who’s approaching him
    for a job, an illegal alien or is it a New Mexican that happens to look a little bit
    like a Mexican?” Like, sometimes I do after a little bit in the sun and enforcement at
    the border is an impossibility unless you’re willing to put billions of dollars into that
    2,000 miles. I’d like to take all of you along, just walk along portions of the New Mexico
    border. You just can’t do it. It’s an impossible task. And amnesty, I think there ought to
    be a clearer set of criteria by which permanent residence would be granted for those people
    in this country, but the amnesty proposed by the President, some vague five-year plan
    was again, deservedly, universally criticized. John: Dr. Fuchs? Lawrence: What I hear many of the commissioners
    asking is whether or not there isn’t a way to meet your objectives. I understand your
    objectives to be as follows, to accommodate the desire of many employers in this country,
    to find hardworking persons who will do an honest day’s labor so that they can meet their
    goals in their establishment. To accommodate the desire of the great many people not just
    from Mexico, but from many countries in South America and Central America, and other parts
    of the world to come to the United States to improve their lot economically, with the
    notion that they’re not necessarily going to plant roots in the United States, not necessarily
    going to raise their families in the United States. And it seems to me what the commissioners
    are trying to do right now is to recognize that when you do have a large scale temporary
    worker program, it isn’t necessarily going to be enforceable that there will be leakage
    out of that system, that human beings stay here because they fall in love, they get married,
    they have children or they find that they really do like the place after all. And that
    in the nature of human activity, people don’t really have that kind of a mindset, “I am
    going back,” or, “I am going to stay.” That’s not the way most of our ancestors thought
    about it when they came. What there is, is a kind of a concern that the whole thrust
    of our history has been away from indentured servants, away from bonded labor, away from
    slavery toward treating every individual who works in the United States as a potential
    citizen and having the potential for all of the entitlements, and all of the rights protected
    by the constitution and/or resident aliens will have that. So, that’s some of the thinking.
    The fear that in the nature of the case no matter how well-designed a temporary worker
    program might not meet the highest standards which American sets for the protection of… Harrison: I think one of the problems that
    we’re having is we still remember the word, “Bracero,” which was a program that everybody
    would like to forget. It was a program that required a contract to exist between the worker
    and the employer. That’s what is often forgotten in the descriptions of the bracero program
    and what we’re saying is, “No, let’s do everything that you have just described, but except we’re
    going to put a limit on the time that they can spend here.” Temporary worker visa for
    them, but otherwise, the ropes are off and all U.S. laws apply to the protection of these
    workers, to their salary levels, to everything else and the benefits that they raised on.
    That is the difference. The leakage will occur. John: Before we get to the question and answer
    session, Mr. Otero raised a point which I think it would be useful if we could define
    further or delineate on. Mr. Otero knows we should have the help of other nations in this
    resolution of this immigration problem, the refugee problem being a large part of it because
    it’s going to be with us as far as we can see into the future. So, what kind of help
    can we expect or should we expect, for instance, from the United Nations or any other international
    body in this immigration crisis? Dr. Fuchs, do you want to start? Lawrence: Should and help are two different…
    should we expect and what kind will we get are two different things because I think we
    should expect a great deal from many potentially large receiving countries, but we have received
    very little. I’m not sure how effective our efforts in this line have been, but what we
    have now, a very thin week international structures to deal with an international problem. International
    problem of migration is one of the great world issues, one of the great planetary issues
    of our time. We don’t have planetary structures to deal with it if you take the question of
    refugee migration and sudden refugee migration particularly. We’ve followed up on the great Cambodian crisis
    with a marvelously dramatic episode, Vice President Mondale went and made a wonderful
    speech, talked about the turning away of the Jews in the 1930s and so on. And we were able
    to extract some cooperation from other receiving countries. With respect to this recent Cuban
    episode, our efforts on the diplomatic side to the extent that we made them, don’t seem
    to have borne much fruit. So, when you say, “What kind should we expect?” We should expect
    a great deal. This Commission has on the study now ways in which we might be able to build
    regional, that is on international scale, structures which could help to plan for and
    deal with emergency refugee flows when they took place on a regional basis. They don’t
    exist right now and that’s really the answer to the question. Joaquin: Well, I think the United States should
    take the initiative to promote some sort of a conference on a worldwide basis to develop
    ways and means for the handling of these type of crisis such as we are witnessing today.
    There’s no reason why the nations of the free world that have a concern that they are with
    us in military alliances, economic alliances and so forth, should not get together and
    develop a statute internationally to try to work together in resettling these refugees
    all over the world. And to me, if the United States should be taking that initiative because
    everybody in the world wants to come to this country and I think we should be proud of
    that that we remain a nation. That people don’t want to go to Russia or Red China. They
    want to come here. Michael: John? John: Yes, Dr. Novak? Michael: Could I raise one thing? One point
    we have to remember here is, where are these people coming from? One of the great causes
    of these migrations we’re talking about is totalitarianism. Andso as long as we let totalitarianism
    multiply, which it has done in Cambodia and Cuba, and other places as well, that is where
    the red tide of refugees is coming from and will come from. And until the free world nations
    are willing to face that problem, there’s going to be a greater shortage of liberty
    and more people coming in. Harrison: Amen. Amen. John: Well, I think we have opened this general
    subject up very broadly. I think there’s one quick question that I might pose. I have read
    and heard charges that in the differential treatment of the Cubans coming out of Cuba
    now and the Asians who are coming into Florida, we have a racist policy. Dr. Fuchs? Lawrence: Under the new law, the UN protocol
    has been accepted in the definition of refugee and that’s anybody who was a well-founded
    fear of persecution should they return in their homeland. The problem with the Asians
    may be several folds, apart from their racist factor which I have no personal knowledge
    of it all. There is the fact of, one, people who flee from persecution in Haiti to the
    extent that there is real persecution and there’s no question or there is some, or fleeing
    from a family despotism, not an ideological despotism and not fleeing religious persecution.
    It’s not a question, such as Soviet Jews where, you know, in the Soviet Union today if you’re
    Jewish, your kids are not going to have as good a chance to go to schools or fulfill
    certain occupations. So, you have endemic, systemic persecution, but in the Haitians,
    it’s a family. If you go along with the family, you’re okay if you don’t. So that’s one problem. The second problem is the State Department
    some time back, when we had the old law, did send a team down to Haiti and looked the situation
    over and said that substantially what you have is people who live in terrible economic
    conditions, but that you don’t have widespread political persecution. So, because of the
    legacy of that report and because of the legacy of the law and the old definition, and perhaps
    because they are black, and I don’t know that that’s a case, but this is some of the thinking
    perhaps that’s gone into the reluctance of our government to move into a definition of
    refugee status for the Haitian, even to grant work authorizations to those who are petitioning
    for asylum. But the fact of the matter is that more recently, the Cubans who have come
    to the United States, also are largely seeking opportunity as the Haitians are. Some have
    a well-founded fear of persecution, particularly now that they have left the place, just as
    some of the Haitians have a well-founded fear of persecution now that they left Haiti, but
    most human beings. It’s, again, the human situation. Why do you
    leave? Why do the Irish leave Ireland? You know, they were starving. But did they like
    the political system? Did they have reason to fear that system? Sure, they did and that
    it’s a mixture of motives and it’s very hard to decide. Now, refugee policy and the last
    analysis anywhere in the world is going to be a function of foreign politics as well
    as domestic politics, as well as some generalized standard of equity which we have tried to
    embody in the law, but we can’t accept all 14 million so we make decisions on an ad hoc
    basis. Michael: One problem you come to in the case
    of Haiti is the jump from defining a refugee is someone who flees from totalitarianism
    to defining it as someone who flees from authoritarianism. Now that covers virtually the whole world
    except a dozen or 20 nations at most, and that’s an enormous jump. Now, the difference
    between a totalitarian and an authoritarian regime is a considerable one, because the
    one is able to cover a whole totality of human life. The other can be cruel and repressive
    for that anything like the synchronization of controls. That’s, I think, a step we’re
    going to have to face. [Crosstalk 00:47:30] John: Well, we go to the question and answer
    right after Mr. Otero. Joaquin: Just this point here. You know, the
    technicality that is applied to the Haitian refugees doesn’t convince me in any way because
    Haiti has one of the most repressive, one of the most brutal dictatorships that this
    earth has ever known. In Haiti, Papa Doc when he becomes your enemy and you do something
    against him, not only does he kill you, but he kills everybody who’s a member of your
    family. They eradicate your roots in Haiti. You know, Batista in Cuba used to kill a lot
    of people and Marcos Perez Jimenez, and Castro still killing people and imprisoning people. So, for anybody to say that the Haitians are
    merely economic refugees, they ought to have their head examined because, in reality, they
    don’t know what’s happening in Haiti. There is as much political persecution in Haiti
    as there is in Cuba or as there is in Guatemala or any other country that has a dictatorship. John: I think what we need to find here is
    the definition problem is a very difficult one we’ll have to wor. Now, it’s time for
    question and answer session. Yes, sir. You, sir. Please, sir. Roger: My name is Roger Conner and I’m the
    Executive Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. It’s better known as FAIR.
    I’ve noted that each of the panelist has in tern advocated an increase in immigration
    of one kind or another. So my question is this, in 1977 the distinguish Roper Polling
    organization found that 75% of the American people believe that a level of immigration
    of 400,000 per year is excessive. And today, legal immigration is running at greater than
    600,000 per year. So, my question to each of the panelist, and I regret that all the
    panelists agree on this score and you don’t have a dissenting view, but I’d ask each of
    the panelist, why is it they believe that the American people are wrong on this score? Harrison: Well, as an elective representative
    of those people, let me say that I don’t know what the number is and you may not have been
    listening carefully. In my opening remarks, I said, I think we have to come to some decisions,
    some goals, some limits, if you will, that are consistent with the traditional role that
    political immigration is played in our country. I don’t know what those limits are. I don’t
    know whether they’re 400,000 or a million, or 200,000, or what. I just think that it
    is almost impossible with our tradition, I kind of think it is impossible, with our tradition
    to completely close our doors to political immigration. On the other hand, with respect to the economic
    migration, I think you’ll find that the surveys are very different at least in the areas that
    are most significantly affected by economic migration. So, such as that for Mexico. The
    idea of temporary worker visa programs has a fair amount of support and I think we have
    to continue to draw this distinction. There is a very valid distinction between the two. Lawrence: I think the most important distinction,
    Mr. Conner, is one between legal immigration and on one hand, and illegal immigration and
    sudden refugee emergencies or flows particularly when there are expellees on the other. What
    we found at our public hearings and what we’re finding in the effort to fine tune the analysis
    of public opinion is there is growing anxiety, even outrage, over an immigration policy that
    is out of control and that means that the hostility is directed against illegal immigration.
    And also to some considerable and growing extent against the acceptance of large numbers
    of refugees who impact very suddenly in a particular locality so that we have found
    that the…and the polls never ask these questions and don’t make the distinction really. We
    have found that with respect to the family reunification goal of immigration, with respect
    to the goal of immigration to provide opportunity for persons who seek opportunity and who would
    make a contribution to the United States that when you make those distinctions, there isn’t
    the outrage and hostility. Most people still seem to feel strongly that this is a country
    whose strength, to a very large degree, comes from valid immigration, legal immigration,
    but they are very angry about illegal immigration and about sudden impact from refugees, particularly
    when they’re expellees as in the case of recent Cuban migrations. John: Dr. Novak? Michael: Public opinion isn’t always right
    and it isn’t always to be followed because public opinion itself changes. It changes
    on the economic climate is different. It changes when leaders figure out a rational and intelligent
    policy and seek to persuade people to follow it. A lot would depend with public opinion
    in how you ask the question. If you ask that whether they would like to turn people back
    in the sea, whether by their choice of limiting from 400,000 to 200,000 let’s say, they would
    like to condemn such persons to lives in prison or whatever else. I think the American people
    might very well suggest that there are some other things they would rather see yield than
    that. And in any case, that’s the function of leadership, to determine what is a rational
    policy and then to try to persuade people democratically, that it is indeed a rational
    policy which they would support. John: Mr. Otero? Joaquin: Mr. Conner, your figure of 400,000
    is inaccurate, 600,000 is more in reality. When you consider the number of legal immigrants
    coming into the United States through the regular route, plus the number of refugees
    from Cambodia and so on, you got over 600,000 people. And I am very cognizant of the so-called
    backlash that is being effected today throughout the country and particularly among my own
    membership in the labor unions. But I want to say to you that my advocacy for a larger
    number of legal migrants is subordinated toward doing something about the legal immigration
    in the United States. So, as far as I am concerned, the two things go hand in hand. We first control
    or try to control illegal immigration and then worry about the numbers for legal migrants
    into the United States. John: Next question please? Yes, sir. Roy: My name is Roy Morgan. I’m the Executive
    Director of Zero Population Growth. Given that the U.S. population is about to 5% of
    the world’s population and given that we consume about 35% of the world’s non-renewable resources,
    it seems to make sense that U.S. immigration policy should be a part of a national U.S.
    population policy. Would you comment on that please? John: Who’d like to start that one? Why don’t
    you start it? All right, please, Dr. Novak. Michael: I’ll start thereabout. Well, first
    of all, there are something tricky about those figures that I like to call attention to.
    Many of the things we now call resources, non-renewable resources at that, were not
    known to be resources 50 years ago, some of them are 100 years ago for others, but that’s
    a very important data. The same population of the United States that you were speaking
    of because of its liberty, because of its inventiveness, because of the character of
    the people who come here is also the source of the discovery of a quite considerably larger
    share than 35% of those resources. And so, I think overall, and my own view would be
    that our preoccupation with the Zero Population Growth alone in the United States is not the
    only way to go about setting a policy either for population or for immigration. Lawrence: On this question of linking immigration
    policy to population policy and resource use policy, we’ve heard from as many people arguing
    that they’re worried about a shortfall in population in this country as they are worrying
    on the other side. The argument is that given our present fertility rate of 1.8 that we
    will have a serious shortage of persons in the working age population relative to those
    who are over 65 or over 70, or who are more dependent on those in the workforce. This
    applies of course obviously the social security options. Harrison: God help us if we don’t change that,
    Social Security System. Lawrence: But it also applies with respect
    to general levels of productivity and very great concern about what American economic
    vitality will be in 1990 and by the year 2000. John: This concludes another Public Policy
    Forum presented by the American Enterprise Institute for public policy research. On behalf
    of AEI, our hearty thanks to the distinguished and expert panelists, Dr. Michael Novak, Dr.
    Lawrence Fuchs, Senator Harrison Schmitt, and Mr. J. F. Otero, and our thanks also to
    our guests and experts in the audience for their participation. Peter: This public policy forum on U.S. immigration
    policy has brought to you the views of four experts in the field. It was presented by
    AEI, the American Enterprise Institute. It is the aim of AEI to clarify issues of the
    day by presenting many view points in the hope that by so doing, those who wish to learn
    about the decision-making process will benefit from such a free exchange of informed and
    enlightened opinion. I’m Peter Hackes in Washington. Announcer: This Public Policy Forum series
    is created and supplied to this station as a public service by the American Enterprise
    Institute, Washington, D.C. AEI is a non-profit, nonpartisan, publicly-supported research and
    education organization. For a transcript of this program, send $3.75
    to the American Enterprise Institute, 1150 17th Street, Northwest Washington, D.C., 20036.

    Geography Now! LIECHTENSTEIN
    Articles, Blog

    Geography Now! LIECHTENSTEIN

    August 14, 2019


    Guys, it’s here. Some of you have been waiting for this episode for years. Sure, everybody knows about China, Brazil, Germany and Australia but how many of you know anything about little Liechtenstein! ♫ It’s time to learn Geography Now! ♫ Everybody I’m Host Barb’s. Okay, I actually had the incredible honour to not only go to this country with my mum last year And we also got passport stamps, which by the way Swiss geogra-peeps Hermann and Fabianne thank you for driving and hosting us, but I also had the incredible honour of meeting one of the incredibly rare and few native-born Liechtensteiner Geogra-peeps, Pascal. Dude, a real Liechtensteiner watches Geography Now. That’s amazing! Meeting an actual native of Liechtenstein is like finding a unicorn, in a haystack, in the Saharan desert. And the desert is made of haystacks, Sorry I’m just kind of gushing because come on we’re doing little Lichtenstein today. Let’s begin Now if you don’t know anything about Liechtenstein, the first thing you might need to know is that it is incredibly small. Like this sixth smallest country in the world. And it’s also rather difficult to get into in contrast to other European countries. First of all, Classified as a Microstate, the nation of Liechtenstein is located between Austria and Switzerland taking up only a hundred and sixty-two square kilometres, being only 25 kilometers long and and 9.4 Kilometers wide. It is also one of the only two doubly landlocked nations in the world meaning that it’s landlocked within other landlocked nations, the other one being Uzbekistan. The country is divided into 11 different municipalities with their own exclaves with the capital of Vaduz that has only about 5,200 people located in the center of the country. Vaduz is actually the second largest town in the country, the first being Schaan with about 500 more people. The country has no airports or seaports, but they do have a heliport at Balzers but that’s just like for tourist rides into the mountains. And they do have four train stations operated by an Austrian Federal Railway system and the stations are only serviced on weekday peak hours. So getting in, you’re much better off either taking a bus or car. To drive in, you can take various bridge crossings from Switzerland or you can come in from Feldkirch, Austria. There isn’t any border patrol or passport checks. It’s really easy. However if you do want a passport stamp, you can get one at the Tourism/ Post Office in Vaduz for about 3 Euros. Worth it! The main number 28 road pretty much crosses the entire country north to south as almost the entire country lives on the west side due to the high mountainous border to the east. The funny thing is: After World War 2, Liechtenstein actually had a little land dispute with what is now Czechia over the castles and forests and agricultural land plots that were hereditary lands that belonged to the former monarchs. These lands altogether made up a land area over ten times the size of the Liechtenstein. However when they brought it up, Czechia was like: “Hmm, so you want your old lands back, eh? Well, how about I give you the castles, but not the surrounding land areas.” to which Liechtenstein was like: Finally in 2009, they decided to drop the case and just let it go. But I mean whatever, they have like 7 other palaces in Austria and one in Italy. Otherwise some places of interest might include: The prince’s Castle in Vaduz Malbun, which has a ski resort The Main Square, the National Museum The Postage stamp Museum, The Schatzkammer treasure chamber The Kunstmuseum, The Landtag or “Parliament building” and Balzer’s gothic castle. All right. Now let’s take a look at those pristine Alps, shall we? For such a small country, Liechtenstein actually has a lot going on in terms of landscape. For one, the country is located on the Upper Rhine Valley in the European Alps along the longest river, the Rhine that borders with Switzerland. The entire eastern side of Liechtenstein is mountainous with the highest peak, Grauspitz located on the southern border with Switzerland as well. Just up north, the largest and pretty much only real lake in the country, Gampriner Seele can be found although it should be classified as a pond, but eh. When it comes to resources, Liechtenstein isn’t exactly top dog. I mean there’s a few cultivated fields in the south but overall, not too many things to extract. Nonetheless, they do actually have some industries like textiles, pharmaceuticals, power tools like the company “Hilti”. Other companies are in the country like “Neutrik”, “ThyssenKrupp”, “Hoval”, “Hilcona” and also Liechtenstein is the world’s largest provider of false teeth. Thanks to the company, “ivoclar vivadent” accounting for 20% of sales worldwide producing 60 million sets a year. It has something to do with the close relationship with Bollywood? Eh whatever, just look it up. It’s funny though. Because there’s actually more registered companies and jobs in Liechtenstein than there are people. Which is why over half the workforce has to travel into Liechtenstein from Switzerland or Austria. This means the country has the most exports per capita at around 122,000 dollars per person. It wasn’t always like this though. Before the 17th century, Liechtenstein was known for being “the Witch country” with boring farmers. It wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that Liechtenstein decided to change up fiscal policies and become a huge tax haven especially for billionaires, but it’s not like one of those blacklisted havens. It’s a good one, Okay? They do things right. St. Kitts & Nevis: “Hey, we’re just hustling, okay? Don’t act like you don’t too!” Out of all the seven-ish trillion shelter dollars worth in tax havens worldwide, Liechtenstein manages about 180 billion. In addition, They host nearly seventy four thousand ‘letterbox companies’ which don’t even really do anything but they still get paid for. So that means the system kind of keeps Liechtensteiners abundantly employed with about five million dollars and two companies to look after per citizen. Yeah, kids. If you really want to get rich, don’t seek after fame study Business and Finance with minors and accounting. Trust me. I’m a Youtuber. I know exactly what NOT to do. Oh, yeah. The national animal is the Kestrel. they even have a falconry center in Malbun. And some of the top notable dishes of Liechtenstein might include: “Käsknöpfle” which is like a variation of “Kaesespaetzle”, “Riobol”, “Sura käs”, Liechtenstein wine and those crown shaped chocolate things called… Oh geez, how do you pronounce this? “Fürstenhütchen” All right. Now, let’s move on to the ones that make those dishes. The people of this country. Once upon a time, there was this thing called the Holy Roman Empire. It was basically made up of like 1800 territories that eventually meshed and melded into what is now parts of like twelve different countries in Europe. Liechtenstein is basically the last surviving territory of the Holy Roman Empire that never really coalesced into any other state. Partially because nobody really cared about it and it was too small to bother with. BUT WHO’S LAUGHING NOW?! First of all, the country is nearly 38,000 people and is almost always ranked in the top three highest GDP per capita states in the world at nearly 180k per capita. The country is only about 1/3 Native Liechtensteiner whereas the remaining populous is made up of foreigners mostly Germans Austrians, Swiss and Italians They use the Swiss Franc as their currency, they use the type J plug outlet and they drive on the right side of the road. Which by the way, I hate the J plug outlet because half the time, the sockets are sunk into these weird hexagon shaped divots. Half the time, I couldn’t even fit my type C adapter plug when I was in Switzerland. Why? why do you guys do that? That’s like borderline statistic in Switzerland in Liechtenstein; that and your prices, for everything. Otherwise, I’d love everything else about you guys. 😀 Now here’s the thing: Liechtenstein is one of four countries in Europe that speaks German, however, they speak with their own distinct dialect very similar to the Swiss and Austrians. Obviously, it’s a little different from Hochdeutsch which is spoken up North in Germany. From what I was told, Liechtenshiners are known for saying “Hoi” for hello and “Tschau” for bye. Instead of “Kuh” for cow, they say “Buschla”. Instead of “Hügel” for Hill, they say “Böhel”. This is what you guys told me so yeah. Also I was told that this is how you can tell all the Germanic speaking countries apart. Let’s say that you gained weight. This is how a friend from each country would respond: Hmm, so how are you doing? Ahh! I see you’re enjoying your schnitzel eh? You got fat! Now like the Swiss, Liechtenstein has always kind of kept to themselves and stayed out of affairs. There’s a legend that says that when they fought in the Austro-Prussian war, they came back with negative casualties, as in, the army of 80 men came back with a friend. After that the military was disbanded and today, all military affairs are handled by the Swiss army even though they accidentally fired a shell and burned off a patch of their forest in the 80s and accidentally invaded in 2007 and Bah *I’m a sheep* You know, they laughed over it with glasses of wine. Now Liechtenstein is generally seen as being more conservative than other countries and more religious, mostly adhering to Catholicism with very strict stances on social issues like gay marriage abortion and immigration. In fact, less than 60 resident permits are issued every year for EEA citizens that work in Liechtenstein, half by lottery and half by government. Oh yeah, and the country is a monarchy, a principality to be exact. Essentially the Von Liechtenstein Family where the country gets its name from, are descended from Austrian noblemen related to the Hapsburgs. And even though they get little publicity, They are literally the richest Royals in Europe with a net worth of over 7.5 Billion dollars. The current Prince Hans-Adam II being the owner of LGT bank alone having a personal fortune of about four billion dollars. Yeah. By contrast, Queen Elizabeth has only about 500 million. The prince has four children and 15 Grandchildren. Alois being the next in line to the throne. Oh and his brother Maximilian married Angela Gisela Brown from Panama who was the first person of known African ancestry to have married into a reigning European dynasty. The royal family is actually quite popular and loved by the people. They’re very down-to-earth and they eat at cafes downtown in Vaduz regularly talking to the everyday citizens. Once a year, they even hold a party which everyone is allowed to come to the castle and share a beer. There is a bit of controversy though because today, they are the only monarchy in Europe in which the monarch has influence on every level of government. The prince can veto anything. In 2012, they held a vote which kind of went like this: The people: “We want to take away your powers of Exercising the option to veto bills.” The Royal Family: “Hmm, I mean if you really don’t want me around, I can totally just leave and let you guys handle everything.” The people: “Really??” The Royal Family: “Yeah, I’ll just take my 7.6 billion dollars corporate interest and revenue deals outside of the state, but you know, you can sell postcards to… tourists.” The people: “Wait, COME BACK!!” Annnnd, over three quarters of the population voted to let him remain with his original duties. Speaking of monarchy, History. We don’t have a lot of time to go too far into it, but the quickest way I can summarize it: Two small Holy roman empire earldoms of Vaduz and Schellenberg, 1699 this guy comes along, 1712, He purchases both Vaduz and Schellenberg hence joining the two together making the country complete, The Napoleon years but the prince is like a respected military leader so they remain independent, 19th century joins German Confederation although Austria gets left out which geographically separates Liechtenstein from Germany, World War I, breaks ties with Austria-Hungary, 1938 Prince moves back in from Vienna, World War II after Austria’s annexed, they are literally on the Nazi border But Hitler was like: “Meh, not worth it” and left them alone, They stay neutral and independent Post-World War II, economic boom, all the bank’s fiduciaries and engineers come in Czechia dispute, 1984, women are allowed to vote, the last European country to do so, 1995 they joined the EEA and here we are today. Oh and Liechtenstein has like one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Prisons are often empty and anyone with a sentence over 2 years is actually sent to Austria. It’s been said that people typically don’t even lock their front doors. For such a small population, everyone kind of knows everyone and has a close tie. Nonetheless, they still reach out and make friends abroad. Which brings us to… Now it doesn’t really matter how small your country is. If you’re able to handle your country’s overall economic output with a content populace, holding on to sovereignty is a breeze, and so is making friends. Today, They have six embassy missions abroad in Austria, Belgium, Germany Switzerland and the Vatican and the United States. However Switzerland is authorized to represent Liechtenstein in other diplomatic situations unless they decide to send their own delegates. Liechtenstein is interesting because they don’t host any embassies in their territory, but rather 32 honorary councils, surprisingly three of which are the African states of Chad, Senegal and the Central African Republic whom have reached out and made close ties for decades. They are not part of the European Union but rather part of the Schengen area, which means they have open borders and visa policies with the EU. And also as a member of the EEA, they have free movement of goods and persons and services as well, but yeah, not part of the EU. Austria and Germany have always been close friends especially the Southern Bavarian and Baden Württemberg states of Germany. These two make up some of the largest business partners and foreign population living in Liechtenstein, which is barely even much of a distinction since they are all germanic brothers to begin with. In earlier years, most of the monarchs actually chose to live in Austria rather than their own country until 1938 when Franz Joseph was like: “We’re moving back in folks!” When it comes to their best friends however, most Liechtensteiners might say the Swiss. They share everything. A customs union, a monetary union, military coverage, diplomatic delegates. They even speak relatively the same dialect and have similar mannerisms and culture cues. It’s often said that Switzerland sees Liechtenstein as its little yet surprisingly richer brother. I mean, they literally were totally cool with it when they got accidentally attacked. What more do you need to know? In conclusion, Liechtenstein is kind of like a high capacity storage microchip. Small yet absolutely flooding with abundance neatly tucked away in a small space hidden away from the public eye. Stay tuned, the second creepy Baltic twin, Lithuania, is coming up next.

    5 Groundbreaking Women in Engineering
    Articles, Blog

    5 Groundbreaking Women in Engineering

    August 14, 2019


    Thanks to Emerson for supporting this episode
    of SciShow. To learn more, visit Emerson.com/WeLoveSTEM. [♪ INTRO] After many years of ignoring their stories,
    the world has finally started to talk about women in science — which is amazing! Everyone should know about all the women in
    the past and present who have kicked butt doing amazing research. But we really can’t talk about women in
    STEM enough — and we definitely don’t talk as often as we should about women who
    have done cool work in science’s more applied sibling, engineering. It’s a pretty wide-ranging field, and like
    with more basic science, it’s had women making big advances in it for a long time. And the coolest part? Lots of the stuff they work on and have worked
    on affects your day-to-day life. We’re talking train travel, your Bluetooth
    headphones, your hybrid cars. So buckle up for five fantastic women in engineering. Hedy Lamarr was a lot more brilliant than
    people often gave her credit for. She’s best known for being a famous 1940s
    actress, but she also helped come up with the idea that today underlies secure WiFi
    and Bluetooth technology. This part of Lamarr’s story began in the
    1930s, when she was unhappily married to an Austrian arms dealer. She often hosted her husband’s dinner parties
    or attended meetings with him. And while she wasn’t a fan of playing hostess
    to literal Nazis at these events, she did end up learning a lot about weapons control
    systems from just being there. With World War II on the horizon, that was
    a pretty big deal. See, at this time, radio waves were starting
    to play an important role in these control systems. And at some point, Lamarr quietly came up
    with an idea that would make these signals much harder to jam or intercept. It was an early form of what we today call
    frequency hopping spread spectrum. Rather than sending all of your information
    over one frequency, you spread it out by sending little packets of info over different frequencies. The information you’re sending hops from
    frequency to frequency — and in order to get the whole message, you have to know when
    and on which frequencies bits of information will arrive. That makes your data much more secure. It also means that it’s harder to jam your
    signal, because the jammer has to block lots of radio frequencies instead of just one. Now, fast-forward to the 1940s. By this point, Lamarr had left her husband,
    gone to Hollywood, and become friends with a composer named George Antheil. And finally, she started talking to him about
    her radio ideas, and how they could be used to help the U.S. military. The two agreed that hopping frequencies could
    solve the problem of people intercepting or jamming weapons frequencies… but of course,
    you needed a way to know which frequency the signal would be on at what time. Together, Lamarr and Antheil came up with
    the idea of using player piano rolls to synchronize the sender and the receiver. If you’re not familiar, these are big paper
    rolls that you could plug in to a piano that would then play a song. They each had little cut-outs to tell the
    piano which notes to play when. The idea was that each of the 88 keys on the
    piano could be used to represent a different frequency. And in 1942, this team got a patent for it. Unfortunately, the U.S. military didn’t
    take it too seriously, and Lamarr didn’t receive wide recognition for her work until
    much later, when plays and movies were being written about it. Today, though, this idea of sending packets
    of information over a broad range of frequencies is what makes our WiFi secure and helps sync
    our Bluetooth devices. So thanks, Hedy. Olive Wetzel Dennis graduated from Cornell
    University in 1920 with a degree in civil engineering, then promptly went and got herself
    a railroad job. That all might sound relatively normal now,
    but it wasn’t really done at that time. Dennis was only the second woman to graduate
    from Cornell’s civil engineering program, and women didn’t really work for railroads. But, hey, that didn’t stop her. She got a job working as a draftsman for the
    Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and helped build bridges in rural Ohio. Then, not long after, she became a service
    engineer with the B&O. That meant she rode the line for tens of thousands
    of kilometers a year, paying attention to details, testing things out, and making all
    kinds of improvements. Her work led to stain-resistant upholstery,
    ceiling lights that could be easily dimmed, air conditioning, better meals, window vents
    that brought in fresh air and kept out dust, and reclining chairs. Of course, when Dennis got kind of famous
    for her work, newspapers gave her nicknames like “the Lady Engineer” and the “world’s
    greatest housekeeper.” Yikes. But! She was awesome at her job. And today, everybody appreciates that train
    cars are air-conditioned. Dennis was super detail oriented, an advocate
    for women pursuing their dreams, and proof that engineers don’t have to invent a bunch
    of stuff to have a big impact. Because really, she didn’t just change trains. Small improvement by small improvement, she
    also changed the way we think about transportation and set a new standard for comfortable travel. Annie Easley isn’t a household name, and
    she doesn’t have a huge movie about her. But she was another one of NASA’s hidden
    figures. She always knew that she was good at math,
    but she thought she wanted to go into pharmacy — that is, until one day in 1955, when she
    read about the human computers at NASA’s predecessor, NACA. These were people who did the calculations
    necessary for spaceflight. And right away, she knew that’s what she
    wanted to do. Easley worked as a computer until machines
    replaced humans… and then she just became awesome at programming computers instead. As a programmer, she helped analyze alternative
    energy, including wind and solar power, and she also worked to understand the storage
    life of batteries. The code she wrote for analyzing energy-conversion
    systems actually contributed to the development of the kinds of batteries that we use in hybrid
    cars today. Easley also helped develop software for Centaur,
    a high-energy rocket that would become known as “America’s Workhorse in Space.” The Centaur was designed to use liquid hydrogen
    as a fuel, which was kind of a big deal at the time. Hydrogen is really light – it’s the lightest
    element – and liquid hydrogen also really burns. This makes it a super efficient rocket fuel,
    providing a lot of power for not that much weight. But liquid hydrogen — and the Centaur — got
    off to a rocky start. When the rocket was first tested, it was buggy
    and prone to problems… mostly because liquid hydrogen is so hard to work with. It needs to be stored at less than negative
    250 degrees Celsius, expands quickly when heated, and is so cold that it can make metal
    brittle. So the engineers at Lewis Research Center,
    including Annie Easley, became responsible for “taming” liquid hydrogen by testing
    it and analyzing data about it. Eventually, Centaur rockets would be used
    in over 100 uncrewed launches, boosting satellites into orbit and probes into space. The Centaur would be responsible for sending
    the Cassini mission to Saturn in 1997, as well as probes and fly-bys to Mercury, Venus,
    Mars, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune. So like, no big deal or anything. Lynn Conway literally wrote the textbook on
    microchip design. She helped kickstart the development of the
    kinds of computers and cell phones we have today — and, on a different note, her work
    as an activist for transgender rights has also been influential. Working in the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
    in the 1970s, Conway invented scalable design rules for VLSI chip design. That stands for Very-Large-Scale-Integration,
    and it’s where millions of transistors get combined into a single chip to increase its
    processing power. She also pioneered teaching these methods
    at MIT. Conway’s way of thinking was that the chip
    itself wasn’t the invention. Instead, it was the idea of using the best
    computing technology available to figure out a newer and better way to make the next chip. She deeply understood that the computing industry
    would constantly reinvent itself. Based on her teaching at MIT, and in collaboration
    with Carver Mead of Caltech, Conway wrote Introduction to VLSI Systems, which pretty
    much set in motion chip design as we know it. Also, it led to Moore’s law, which suggests
    that the computing power of chips doubles every two years. Yes, that Moore’s law. All of this is amazing, but another remarkable
    part of Conway’s story is that, by this point, she had already had a whole other career
    in the 60s. Back in those days, she invented dynamic instruction
    scheduling, which is basically where hardware can rearrange a set of instructions to execute
    them in the most efficient way possible. It’s another fundamental component of computer
    architecture and modern computing, but up until recently, nobody really knew that Lynn
    Conway was also responsible for that. That’s because she had done the work before
    coming out as transgender and transitioning. And with the way people viewed gender in the
    60s and 70s, it didn’t feel safe for her to claim that work. But despite that, she still managed to become
    one of the leading thinkers in computer engineering. Finally, Treena Livingston Arinzeh studied
    mechanical engineering as an undergrad, and it was only later that she became interested
    in applying engineering principles to medicine. But once she did? She became an extremely influential researcher
    in the field of stem cells. These are sort of blank-slate cells that can
    differentiate into specialized types of cells. And Arinzeh’s primary interest is in using
    them to repair injuries. You can’t just throw a bunch of stem cells
    in a wound and hope they’ll fix things, though. So an important part of Arinzeh’s research
    is the development of tiny, synthetic biostructures that can serve as a kind of scaffolding for
    stem cells. She’s made some great advancements in this
    field, but her most well-known finding so far was actually published back in 2003. That year, she was able to show that a large
    bone defect in a dog could be repaired by transplanting stem cells from another dog. And, maybe most importantly, immunosuppressant
    drugs weren’t needed to keep the body of the transplant recipient from rejecting those
    cells. This finding laid the groundwork for a big
    idea: that adult stem cells from one person can be implanted into another person without
    being rejected or causing an adverse immune reaction. This is huge. Without the help of immunosuppressant drugs,
    most transplants from donors are rejected by the body because the immune system recognizes
    them as foreign and tries to fight them off. But Arinzeh’s work suggests that isn’t
    true for so-called mesenchymal stem cells. These are stem cells that can differentiate
    into things like bone and cartilage cells, and Arinzeh’s work supports the fact that
    they might be immune-privileged. In other words, molecules on the surface of
    the cells tell the immune system that they shouldn’t be destroyed, which allows them
    to go about their business of differentiating and repairing without interruption. Since her landmark study, Arinzeh has also
    studied therapies for treating cartilage and neurons, both of which are notoriously tricky
    to repair. In addition to her research, Arinzeh also
    runs a summer program for high school students. Growing up, she didn’t have a lot of understanding
    of what an engineer does… but this program can help make sure that these kids will. And that’s why it’s so important to talk
    about women in engineering, too. Because, of course, as Olive Wetzel Dennis
    once said, “There is no reason that a woman can’t be an engineer simply because no other
    woman has ever been one.” And of course now, there have been female
    engineers, and they’ve changed our lives — so we’ll keep celebrating their stories
    and the amazing research they’ve done. Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow,
    and special thanks to Emerson for helping us make it! If you want to learn more about who Emerson
    is and what they’re about, you can go to Emerson.com/WeLoveSTEM. [♪ OUTRO]

    Thermal Expansion – Why are gaps left between railway tracks? | #aumsum
    Articles, Blog

    Thermal Expansion – Why are gaps left between railway tracks? | #aumsum

    August 13, 2019


    Topic: Thermal Expansion. Why are small gaps left in between rails? Hey. Did you notice that the level of mercury in
    the thermometer rose when it was placed in hot water? You must be wondering why this happened, right? It happened because of thermal expansion. Thermal expansion is the tendency of matter to expand on heating. This tendency of expansion can be observed in solids, liquids as well as gases. Now let us see how this concept of thermal expansion applies to a thermometer. A thermometer usually consists of a narrow tube with a small bulb at its one end. The bulb and a part of the narrow tube is
    filled with mercury which is liquid at room temperature. Now, when a thermometer is placed in hot water. Mercury inside it expands due to thermal expansion and as a result its level rises. You must be thinking how the gasoline came out of the tank even though it was exactly filled till the brim. Am I right? Gasoline also expands on heating. So, what happened is that when the tank was filled till the brim, there was no space left in it. Now, when the bike was kept in the sun. The tank became hot which eventually heated the gasoline filled in it. As a result, the gasoline expanded. But since there was no space left in the tank, expansion forced gasoline to come out of the tank. Do you think that the rails bent because of thermal expansion? If yes, then you are absolutely correct. A railway track is made up of a number of
    rails joined to each other. These rails are usually made up of steel. Steel expands on heating and contracts on cooling. When the rails are joined to one another without leaving any space for expansion. The rails bend due to thermal expansion and the train goes off the railway track. To avoid this, the rails are not joined together firmly. Instead, each rail is connected to the other in such a way that a small gap is left in between them. These small gaps provide space for easy expansion of the rails. Which happens during summer. As well as due to continuous friction between the train wheels and the rails. Hence, these small gaps prevent the rails
    from bending, preventing any kind of accidents.

    Learn About Railroad Safety | Railroad Museum Field Trip | KidVision Pre-K
    Articles, Blog

    Learn About Railroad Safety | Railroad Museum Field Trip | KidVision Pre-K

    August 13, 2019


    (upbeat music) (whistling)
    (harp noise) – [Penny] Today, we’re
    at a Railroad Museum. Museums are places that
    have interesting collections of things. This museum has a very
    interesting collection of trains. – Hi Guys, welcome to The
    Gold Coast Rail Road Museum. – Hi.
    – I’m Laurie. – Hi Laurie. – And what’s your name? – Nicholas.
    – Hi Nicholas. And, you are? – Chloe.
    – Hi Chloe, nice to meet you both. Sir. We’re gonna learn lots of
    things about trains today. Are you guys ready?
    – [Family] Yes. – Alright, we’re gonna have a great time. Wanna come this way? We’ll start with some locomotives. This is the 153 steam locomotive. They used to use steam
    locomotives a long time ago, and a locomotive is just an
    engine that pulls the train. And, it has an engine in it just like the front of your parents’ car. – [Nicholas] What’s the engineer for? – [Laurie] The engineer drives the train. He sits in the front and
    the conductor takes care of the safety of the rest of the train. He usually rides in the back. There’s lots of different kinds of trains, and another kind of
    train is a freight train. And a freight train can carry your toys, it can carry your food, it
    can even carry your mail. Just about everything
    in your life has been on a train at least once. – [Penny] So, the
    locomotive is the first car on every train? – [Laurie] It is, and it
    can pull all kinds of cars. There can be a passenger
    car, or a freight car, they even have a caboose
    where the crew can ride. So you guys wanna go check
    out some different trains? – [Nicholas] Yes!
    – [Laurie] Alright! Each car has a different purpose. – [Penny] What kind of cars
    are attached to the train? – [Laurie] Well, you
    might have passenger cars, and there’s several
    types of passenger cars. You might have one that
    just has seats in it, where everybody gets to sit
    when they take a train ride, or you might have what
    we call a sleeper car and it has beds in it. It’s really fun. There are cars that they call lounge cars and you can just kinda hang out and relax, maybe have a juice. There’s all kinds of passenger cars. There’s a caboose right there! A red caboose. – [Penny] It’s the last car on a train. – [Laurie] That’s right. – [Penny] What is inside? Let’s see. Wow, look at this! – [Nicholas] What is this for? – The caboose is for the conductor. The conductor might come
    and check your tickets, he might step outside and call all aboard for everybody at a station, he has lots of different jobs. The conductor would ride back here and he could look out the windows and make sure nothing
    was wrong with the train. – It looks good. – [Laurie] And they could
    also take a break back here. (bell ringing) (train whistling) – [Penny] Do you hear that?
    – [Nicholas] That’s a whistle. – [Penny] That’s right. That whistle means a train is coming. – [Laurie] Trains are very large and heavy and take a long time to stop. So if you see any of these
    signs you need to stop, look, and listen. – [Penny] This is where
    trains cross the street. (bell ringing) R and R means rail road. Railroad is a compound word. It is two words combined to make one word. Rail and road. Together they make, railroad.
    – [Children] Railroad – [Penny] Watch out for
    trains if you see this sign. (train horns) (upbeat amusement park music)
    (murmuring) – [Laurie] This is a
    collection of model railroads and they’re just like the
    trains that we saw outside, only they’re smaller. They still have the
    locomotive and the cars and the caboose. There’s a locomotive. – A locomotive! – Caboose! – [Penny] Let’s put this
    train set in the right order. Which car goes first? – [Chloe] This one. – That’s right, that’s the locomotive. That’s where the engine is and
    it pulls all the other cars. And what’s next, where do the people sit? – [Nicholas] Passenger car. – [Laurie] Good job,
    this is a passenger car. – And which is the last car? – [Chloe] Caboose. – [Laurie] The caboose
    is for the conductor. – [Penny] This is where they could rest and talk and eat. – [Laurie] The train’s gonna
    be pulling in any minute now. (train whislting)
    – [Penny] That’s our train. We better hurry. The engineer communicates
    with the whistle. The whistle tells people that he’s coming. (bell ringing)
    (train whistling) Thank you Laurie for
    teaching us all about trains. – You’re very welcome Penny, and I thank you all for coming, and I hope you have a great day. (train steaming) (whistling)
    (harp noise) (upbeat music)

    Knowing How to Tell a Good Story Is Like Having Mind Control | Alan Alda
    Articles, Blog

    Knowing How to Tell a Good Story Is Like Having Mind Control | Alan Alda

    August 13, 2019


    I met a nanoscientist at Cornell University
    who had a really interesting story. He had discovered, with his graduate student,
    how to make the world’s thinnest glass—it was only one atom thick. The top of it was the same atom as the bottom
    of it, and he called it “two-dimensional glass.” It was an amazing thing, nobody had ever found
    a way to make glass this thin before, and it was picked up by one scientific journal. And it seemed like a more interesting subject
    than one that would just get that much attention. And a couple of months later he was taking
    our workshop when we were up at Cornell, and in the course of talking about his discovery
    we realized that he had discovered how to make the world’s thinnest glass by accident. It wasn’t something he was trying to do, an
    accident happened. And I said, “You know, this is fascinating. People like us, on the outside, in the public,
    it’s an interesting story to us to know that something so groundbreaking, that helped you
    understand the structure of glass and might have new uses for glass, that you discovered
    such a thing by accident. What an interesting story that is.” And also in the meantime he had been cited
    in the Guinness Book of World Records as having discovered the world’s thinnest glass. So now he had two things that would interest
    the public. And the next time he gave an interview he
    started off with the story of how it had been an accident that he discovered this. This human story now led into the technical
    story about what was the world’s thinnest glass, how was it made, and that kind of thing. It became a story that was interesting to
    other people who don’t know the technical details with that familiarity. And now his story about discovering the glass
    was picked up by websites and newspapers all over America, all over Great Britain, and
    venture capitalists started calling him, asking him if they could commercialize this process—just
    starting with a human story that people on the outside of your work are interested in,
    because we’re all human and we all think in stories. And every experiment has a story. Every life and science has a story and it’s
    so common to hear people, when you say to them in a workshop, “Tell me your story.” They say, “Oh, I don’t have a story.” Yes, you do! What’s fascinating to you, when you really
    think about it, about how you got from here to there? And the most important thing about a story,
    it turns out—to me, anyway—is the obstacle that you found yourself facing as you were
    trying to get to your goal. The story is not, “I wanted to get to Toledo,
    and I went and I got there.” That’s okay. It’s not much of a story. The story is, “I was headed toward Toledo
    and the airplanes were shut down, the cars were shut down, the railroad—how was I going
    to get to Toledo?” That’s an interesting story and I want to
    listen to that. If in the course of that it turns out you
    discovered a new way to get to Toledo, I want to hear it. The glass of water exercise is something that
    I figured out on the way to giving a talk. I wanted to give a talk to writers about what’s
    the essential ingredient of a dramatic story. And I’m in the car with my wife and I said,
    “I don’t know how to start this thing.” She said, “Well, why don’t you start with
    some image.” I said, “An image, okay.” So an image of a story, a dramatic story,
    I decided in that moment was: carrying a glass of water across the stage, filled to the brim. So when I got there I said, “Is there somebody
    relatively brave in the audience? Come on up. Carry this empty glass across the stage.” And it’s a little awkward. The audience titters a little bit, but nothing
    much is happening. She puts the glass down on the table over
    there. Then I take a pitcher and I fill it all the
    way to the brim, there’s hardly a molecule of water left before it starts to spill, and
    she’s holding the glass and I say, “Okay, now carry the glass carefully across the stage
    and put it on the table over there, but don’t spill a drop or your entire village will die.” Now she’s got an obstacle she has to overcome,
    and she carries it so carefully, so carefully that the audience is riveted to the glass,
    and if a bead of water goes down the side of the glass you can hear them gasp. Now, everybody knows there’s no village, nobody
    is going to die, but just the imaginary situation that she has this important obstacle makes
    this an engaging sight, and that happens in every story that has a dramatic obstacle in
    it. The attempt to get past the obstacle, to get
    where you’re going, to achieve what you’re trying to achieve, makes it an interesting
    story. So my guess is instead of leaving out your
    mistakes, instead of leaving out the problems you have in achieving something, whether it’s
    science or whether it’s an interview where the prospective boss says, “Tell me about
    your greatest achievement,” don’t just tell them about your greatest achievement, tell
    them about the problems you had in solving the issue you were dealing with so you could
    get to something you could call an achievement. That makes it an interesting story. It makes it a more human story and it doesn’t
    make you a braggart, it shows you had something really tough to work on, here’s what you thought
    you might do to make it better. It’s engaging, and what you want to do is
    engage that new employer. You don’t want to just give them the facts. “Here are the facts, you ought to hire me.” He’s going to work with you. He’s going to work with a person. Give him the person, and if the scientist
    gives the audience the person and how they felt and what they went through as they were
    accomplishing this important discovery, we’re going to take it in better, we’re going to
    understand it better, and we’re going to remember it.

    Canada & The United States (Bizarre Borders Part 2)
    Articles, Blog

    Canada & The United States (Bizarre Borders Part 2)

    August 12, 2019


    Canada and the United States share the longest,
    straightest, possibly boringest border in the world. But, look closer, and there’s plenty
    of bizarreness to be found. While these sister nations get along fairly
    well, they both want to make it really clear whose side of the continent is whose. And
    they’ve done this by carving a 20-foot wide space along the border. All five and a half
    thousand miles of it. With the exception of the rare New England
    town that predates national borders or the odd airport that needed extending, this space
    is the no-touching-zone between the countries and they’re super serious about keeping it
    clear. It matters not if the no-touching-zone runs through hundreds of miles of virtually
    uninhabited Alaskan / Yukon wilderness. Those border trees, will not stand. Which might make you think this must be the
    longest, straightest deforested place in the world, but it isn’t. Deforested: yes, but
    straight? Not at all. Sure it looks straight and on a map, and the
    treaties establishing the line *say* it’s straight… but in the real world the official
    border is 900 lines that zig-zags from the horizontal by as much as several hundred feet. How did this happen? Well, imagine you’re
    back in North America in the 1800s — The 49th parallel (one of those horizontal lines
    you see on a globe) has just been set as the national boundary and it’s your job to make
    it real. You’re handed a compass and a ball of string and told to carefully mark off the
    next 2/3rds of a continent. Don’t mind that uncharted wilderness in the way: just keep
    the line straight. Yeah. Good luck. With that. The men who surveyed the land did the best
    they could and built over 900 monuments. They’re in about as straight as you could expect a
    pre-GPS civilization to make, but it’s not the kind of spherical / planar intersection
    that would bring a mathematician joy. Nonetheless these monuments define the border
    and the no-touching-zone plays connect-the-dots with them. Oh, and while there are about 900 markers
    along this section of the border, there are about 8,000 in total that define the shape
    of the nations. Despite this massive project Canada and the
    United States still have disputed territory. There is a series of islands in the Atlantic
    that the United States claims are part of Maine and Canada claims are part of New Brunswick.
    Canada, assuming the islands are hers built a lighthouse on one of them, and the United
    States, assuming the islands are hers pretends the lighthouse doesn’t exist. It’s not a huge problem as the argument is
    mostly over tourists who want to see puffins and fishermen who want to catch lobsters,
    but let’s hope the disagreement gets resolved before someone finds oil under that lighthouse. Even the non-disputed territory has a few
    notably weird spots: such as this tick of the border upward into Canada. Zoom in and
    it gets stranger as the border isn’t over solid land but runs through a lake to cut
    off a bit of Canada before diving back down to the US. This spot is home to about 100 Americans and
    is a perfect example of how border irregularities are born: Back in 1783 when the victorious Americans
    were negotiating with the British who controlled what would one day be Canada, they needed
    a map, and this map was the best available at the time. While the East Coast looks pretty
    good, the wester it goes the sparser it gets. Under negotiation was the edge of what would
    one day be Minnesota and Manitoba. But unfortunately, that area was hidden underneath an inset on
    the map, so the Americans and British were bordering blind. Seriously. They guessed that the border should start
    from the northwestern part of this lake and go in a horizontal line until it crossed the
    Mississippi… somewhere. But somewhere, turned out to be nowhere as
    the mighty Mississippi stops short of that line, which left the border vague until 35
    years later when a second round of negotiations established the aforementioned 49th parallel. But there was still a problem as the lake
    mentioned earlier was both higher, and less circular than first though, putting its northwesterly
    point here so the existing border had to jump up to meet it and then drop straight down
    to the 49th, awkwardly cutting off a bit of Canada, before heading west across the remainder
    of the continent. Turns out you just can’t draw a straight(-ish)
    line for hundreds of miles without causing a few more problems. One of which was luckily spotted in advance:
    Vancouver Island, which the 49th would have sliced through, but both sides agreed that
    would be dumb so the border swoops around the island. However, next door to Vancouver Island is
    Point Roberts which went unnoticed as so today the border blithey cuts across. It’s a nice
    little town, home to over 1,000 Americans, but has only a primary school so its older
    kids have to cross international borders four times a day to go to school in their own state. In a pleasing symetry, the East cost has the
    exact opposite situation with a Canadian Island whose only land route is a bridge to the United
    States. And these two aren’t the only places where
    each country contains a bit of the other: there are several more, easily spotted in
    sattelite photos by the no-touching zone. Regardless of if the land in question is just
    an uninhabited strip, in the middle of a lake, in the middle of nowhere, the border between
    these sister nations must remain clearly marked.