Youtube daily Follow Oct 31 2017

Actor Lee Seo Won debuted in 2015 in the drama The Awl.

He also starred in Uncontrollably Fond as Suzys younger brother.

Most recently, he filmed for the drama The Liar and His Lover as well as Man of Will.

Director Kim Jin Min claimed Lee Seo Won is likely to follow the steps of Song Joong Ki and Park Bo Gum.

First, Lee Seo Won is from Blossom Entertainment, the same company Song Joong Ki and Park Bo Gum are under.

Also, just like how his fellow seniors did, he is following their steps by hosting Music Bank.

Fellow actor Lee Hyun Woo also complimented Lee Seo Won for having a masculine side to him.

We cant wait to see what this new actor on the scene will do next!.

For more infomation >> Lee Seo Won is likely to follow the steps of Song Joong Ki and Park Bo Gum. - AMAZING NEWS - Duration: 1:53.

-------------------------------------------

Which Laws in the Old Testament am I Supposed to Follow? | The Weekly - Duration: 2:50.

- How do I know which laws in the Old Testament

I'm supposed to follow?

Hey what's up everybody, this is Chad Blackman

and today I want to talk to you about

a really important questions.

There's all kinds of laws in the Old Testament.

In fact, if you research you'll find

there's over 613 different laws in the Old Testament,

that's a ton.

And some of them are kind of, they're kind of weird.

Like we're not supposed to eat shellfish,

we're not supposed to eat bacon,

we're not supposed to wear clothing

that has mixed fabrics in it.

So which one of these laws are we supposed to listen to

and which ones are we not supposed to listen to.

I want to try to lay this out before you

and answer it as simply and quickly as I can.

In the Old Testament, you're going to find

three different kinds of law.

You'll find what's called civil law.

This is what governed the nation of Israel.

These were the laws that the nation of Israel was held to.

It was kind of their government glue if you will.

It's what guided their day in, day out

interactions with each other.

The second kind of law you'll see is ceremonial law.

This is what governed how the Israelites were to worship.

So how they were to approach the temple,

what kind of sacrifices they were to give,

when they were supposed to give 'em,

all the different worship regulations,

that's ceremonial law.

The third kind of law that you'll see in the Old Testament

is what's called moral law.

And the moral laws like what the 10 Commandments are,

it governs morality.

So which one of these laws are we

supposed to listen to today?

Well in the Old Testament, you'll see that God doesn't

hold any of the outside nations,

the nations other than Israel,

he doesn't hold them accountable

to the civil or the ceremonial law,

but he does hold them accountable to the moral law.

You see Jesus do the exact same thing in the New Testament.

Jesus never really gripes on people about the civil

or the ceremonial law.

Jesus never really gives people a hard time

about the civil or the ceremonial law,

but he does talk a lot about the moral law.

In fact, he even elevates the moral law

to a whole 'nother level.

Jesus says things like this, "you've heard that it was said,

"you shall not commit murder.

"But I tell you, if you even harbor hatred in your heart,

"it's like you've already committed murder."

So Jesus affirms the Old Testament moral laws

but then takes it up to an even higher level saying,

it's not just what your outward actions do,

it's what's going on the heart that matters.

What's going on internally is just as

if not more important than what's happening on the outside.

So for us today, which laws in the Old Testament

do we pay attention to?

Well, we pay attention to the moral laws

because that's what God did in the Old Testament

in the outside nations other than Israel,

and that's what Jesus did in the New Testament.

I hope this helps you guys, I hope this gives you

a good answer to a great question

and we'll plan on seeing you soon.

For more infomation >> Which Laws in the Old Testament am I Supposed to Follow? | The Weekly - Duration: 2:50.

-------------------------------------------

Want to Re-elect Trump? Follow The Wall Street Democrats - Duration: 13:52.

Want to Re-elect Trump? Follow The Wall Street Democrats

One of the best ways to help Trump win a second term would be for the Democratic Party to embrace Wall Street.

That surely would convince enough working class voters in key states that the Democrats are totally in bed with financial elites, care little about the destruction of middle class jobs, and will continue to promote and profit by runaway inequality.

Well, that's precisely the strategy recommended by Douglas Schoen, a political strategist and pollster who worked for Bill Clinton.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, he doesn't mince words: "It's not popular to say so today, but there are still compelling reasons Democrats should strengthen ties to Wall Street.". There also are compelling reasons to worry about Schoen's political judgment.

After all, in the closing week of the 2016 campaign, Schoen declared "in good conscience, and as a Democrat, I am actively doubting whether I can vote for the Secretary of State.".

Why turn on his former boss's wife? He believed that because of the surprise Comey letter, ".

we will be facing the very real possibility of a constitutional crisis with many dimensions and deleterious consequences should Secretary Clinton win the election." (To be fair, he also said he wouldn't vote for Trump.).

His credibility as a pollster also is in question. He simply ignores all the data that shows that American people detest Wall Street.

According to the July 2017 Bloomberg poll, the American people hate Wall Street nearly as much as they hate Congress, insurers and drug companies. So what could possibly be the rationale for tying the Democrats to such an unpopular institution as Wall Street?.

To Schoen's credit he says openly what many corporate, anti-Sanders Democrats truly believe. Here are their core arguments as put forth by Schoen:. 1 The Democrats can't win without Wall Street money:.

Schoen, like Hillary, like most mainstream Democrats, points out that Wall Street money (more than $63 million to the Dems in 2016) is absolutely necessary to fund campaigns in the aftermath of Citizens United.

But this argument ignores the fact that Sanders, with his $27 average donations, kept pace with Hillary without taking any Wall Street or Super Pac money. As of June 2016, he had raised $229 million to Hillary's $238 million.

Apparently, rank and file Democrats and independents are willing to fund campaigns they believe in. In 2016, they believed in a campaign aligned against runaway inequality and Wall Street.

2 If the Democrats make criticism of Wall Street a litmus, the party will lose its best candidates.

Schoen believes that "For the 2020 election, some of the party's strongest potential presidential candidates — Senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris as well as Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor — should not be dismissed simply because of their current or past ties to Wall Street.

Dismissed by whom? Schoen seems to be talking only to party elites. He is warning them not to be swayed by the Sanders wing.

But it is the rank and file voters who are rejecting these candidates precisely because of their Wall Street ties. Maybe these "strong" candidates are likely losers in a general election. 3 Americans like capitalism and dislike socialism:.

Wall Streeters choose to believe they are the heart and soul of capitalism, and that Americans much prefer their kind of capitalism to socialism (as embodied in Sanders' soak the rich policies).

As Schoen puts it, "Even in May 2016, when Senator Sanders made redistribution a central part of his platform, Gallup found that only about 35 percent of Americans had a positive image of socialism, compared with 60 percent with a positive view of capitalism.".

The Clinton pollster, however, forgot to mention a recent poll by Harvard University that shows "young adults between ages 18 and 29 .51 percent of respondents do not support capitalism.

Just 42 percent said they support it." Maybe having grown up into the aftermath of the Wall Street created financial crash has something to do with it.

But, Wall Street has an even bigger problem: It defies the very idea of capitalism. In a free market system, businesses compete for our dollars.

Those with superior goods and services survive and thrive. Those with inferior goods and services perish. But when Wall Street failed spectacularly, they were rescued with taxpayer bailouts which defy all the norms of free-market ideology.

One of the main reasons for the vast antipathy towards Wall Street is because they profited wildly when taking down the economy, and then profited again when the government bailed them out.

Why would any party want to tie themselves to such blatant crony capitalism?.

4 Democrats should praise Wall Street for all the good they do Schoen argues that it is hypocritical for the Democrats to fawn over Silicon Valley but "then turn their backs on the very people who help finance its work.

The financial industry brings to market the world's most innovative products and platforms that expand the economy and create jobs." Honestly, I think even Goldman Sachs would be embarrassed by this spin.

That claptrap is used to justify every bit of Wall Street's predatory behavior. Shoddy mortgages? No, we are all venture capitalists who create Facebook, Google and Apple.

Heavens, we don't open up phony accounts, or gamble on fake derivatives or finance payday lenders. No, we are the wholesome, red-blooded risk-takers who find and finance all those Silicon Valley geniuses.

Good luck running on that. 5 The Clinton Democrats were right to deregulate Wall Street: The corporate Democrats look back fondly to the Bill Clinton years.

By embracing Wall Street, they claim to have created an economic miracle in which all boats rise. They "ended welfare as we know it," created jobs and decreased poverty.

The key was deregulating Wall Street — ending Glass Steagall and preventing the regulation of derivatives.

This miracle can happen again, according to Schoen, if we further deregulate Wall Street because this "allows banks to employ capital and finance investment in our country's future, making electric cars, renewable energy and internet connectivity across the globe a reality." Such historical amnesia! He conveniently forgets that the wonders of financial deregulation led, step by step, to the worst financial crash since 1929.

Because of lax or non-existent standards, Wall Street ran wild, concocting scheme after scheme to strip-mine the economy and run up enormous profits.

When it all came crashing down in 2007-08, eight million Americans lost their jobs in a matter of months due to no fault of their own. Not one banker went to jail for these financial crimes against the American people.

This is what the corporate Democrats want us to embrace? Why did Hillary lose? Ultimately, the corporate Democrats are creating a narrative about why Hillary lost.

Schoen argues that "Hillary Clinton's lurch to the left probably cost her key Midwestern states that Barack Obama had won twice and led to the election of Donald Trump." In this way, Wall Street Democrats put the blame on Sanders for forcing that "lurch to the left." This is where party elites collapse into a rabbit hole.

First off, Schoen seems to forget that he abandoned Hillary because of her emails, not because she lurched to the left. So did millions of other voters.

Hillary also lost voters because she took millions of dollars from Wall Street for speeches that she refused to release.

It's obvious to anyone not on Wall Street or being paid by them, that Clinton lost credibility because she was too close to Wall Street.

It also should be obvious by now that cuddling up to Wall Street is one of the surest ways to reelect Trump.

Why are the Corporate Democrats so politically tone deaf? It is frightening to see how out of touch corporate Democrats are from the American public, especially working people. This is not an accident.

Since Clinton and company moved the party towards corporate elites, runaway inequality has accelerated. In 1970, the gap in earnings between a top 100 CEO and an average worker was $45 to $1.

Today it is $800 to $1. A miniscule percentage of Americans have become filthy rich since Wall Street was deregulated. Another group just below them have also become multi-millionaires — Clinton and his minions among them. They are living the good life.

They never again have to worry about money or whether their kids will find decent jobs. It's all wired for them. They no longer have any idea how the rest of us live, and the American people know it.

Once you float around in that elite strata, it becomes easy to make the ridiculous case that the Democrats should suck up to Wall Street. They are your friends, colleagues and employers.

It then becomes so easy to make up fantasies about how deregulating them is a thing of beauty. It becomes natural to blame the party's demise on Sanders for promoting programs like free higher education and Medicare for All.

And, unfortunately, these Democratic elites will feel no financial pain during the era of Trump. The markets are going up, aren't they? But if the Democrats continue to suck up to Wall Street, they're through.

One wonders if that's precisely what Wall Street wants.     Democrats should praise Wall Street for all the good they do.

Schoen argues that it is hypocritical for the Democrats to fawn over Silicon Valley but "then turn their backs on the very people who help finance its work.

The financial industry brings to market the world's most innovative products and platforms that expand the economy and create jobs.".

Honestly, I think even Goldman Sachs would be embarrassed by this spin. That claptrap is used to justify every bit of Wall Street's predatory behavior.

Shoddy mortgages? No, we are all venture capitalists who create Facebook, Google and Apple. Heavens, we don't open up phony accounts, or gamble on fake derivatives or finance payday lenders.

No, we are the wholesome, red-blooded risk-takers who find and finance all those Silicon Valley geniuses. Good luck running on that.

For more infomation >> Want to Re-elect Trump? Follow The Wall Street Democrats - Duration: 13:52.

-------------------------------------------

Follow Up to Implicit Bias: From Awareness to Change - Duration: 11:01.

Hi, it's been awhile.

The last time we talked we were talking about Implicit Bias: From Awareness to Change.

And during our talk, we touched briefly upon microaggressions.

And I'd like to talk a little bit more about microaggressions, what they are, and how to

respond to them.

First let's start by defining what a microaggression is.

There are three types.

We have microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations.

A microassault is a very intentional attack upon a person based on their difference.

This is an attack that can be based on race, on gender, on sexual preference.

And in a microassault the person may use racial slurs.

They may physically attack someone.

The key here is that a microassault is an assault.

It's an attack and it is intended to hurt and cause pain whether emotionally or physically.

Next, we have a microinsult.

And these types of microaggressions are very, very difficult.

People engage in them on a subconscious level usually they're not aware at all that they're

engaging in a microinsult.

They're subtle little ways of demeaning a person and making that person feel that

they're not part of the group.

They exclude people.

They make people feel shame.

They make people feel like they don't belong.

And then you have a microinvalidation.

And a microinvalidation is to invalidate the experience of a person based on their differentness,

based on how they're different.

Let me give you an example of each.

With a microassault that's calling a person a name, using a racial slur.

That is what we saw just a few days ago during the World Series when the guy hit the home

run against an Asian person and made that very demeaning gesture.

If you haven't seen it, you can Google it.

I'm sure it's out there.

It's calling a person who may be homosexual a derogatory name.

That's a microassault.

Now a microinsult comes in various forms and one just happened to me just yesterday when

I was reading the newspaper after I was involved in a wonderful early childhood summit in another

state.

And in reading the paper they called the white woman who was also involved in this conference

Dr. So-and-So but only referred to me as Rosemarie Allen.

Believe me that happens more often than not.

It can be racial or it can actually be sexist.

But in this case, I'm assuming it was racial because the other doctor was also female.

Another way we invalidate experiences of people is to shrug things off or try to explain it

away.

For instance, if you attend Florida State University and the Native American community

is saying, "That Seminole mascot you have and the chant that you do is very offensive

to our people," and you go, "Oh we're just having fun.

We don't mean it like that.

You're being too sensitive."

That is a microinvalidation.

So, we said microinsult is just demeaning a person, a microinvalidation is invalidating

the experience of others.

Because we're people, and as I said during our talk, b/c we breathe biased air we all

have biases.

And I believe that microaggressions are the action based result of implicit bias.

And because we're all impacted, we will all engage in microaggressions at one time or

another.

The first step is to forgive yourself.

The second is to work really hard not to reoffend.

Let's talk about some things that we can do.

A microassault – the rule of thumb, don't do it.

Don't engage in a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic type of activities.

Avoid it.

Do not engage.

And a lot of those gestures and actions are based on stereotypes.

Stay away from it.

Another thing, what happens if you witness it.

When you witness a microassault, first you have to make sure that you're safe.

That everyone is safe.

And if there's any way to stand near or close to the victim and if it's safe enough

for you, or a group of you, to say, "Hey.

We're not gonna let you do that right now."

Then try to do something to sort of disengage that person from the person who is being microaggressed.

Call 911.

But do something so that person feels that they are supported.

Two, a microinsult.

And this one is tough because microinsults are not intentional and they're subconscious.

And you may not understand when you've done it.

So, if someone says, "Wow.

What you just did hurt.

Ouch.

It offended me."

What should you do in that situation?

And one of the first things that I want you to think about and understand at that point,

it's NOT.

ABOUT.

YOU!

Resist the urge to defend.

Resist the urge to explain.

When a person says you've offended them, the absolute best response can be, "I'm

sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'll make sure that doesn't happen again."

The other thing is to sit with your own discomfort.

So many times, when someone is brave enough to tell us that we've hurt them, we did

not mean to hurt them, it wasn't intentional.

So, we want to defend ourselves.

And sometimes it hurts us so we may cry.

Just imagine this scenario, that I've been microaggressed, I've found the courage to

tell you that and then you become upset and you begin to defend yourself and cry.

Then me, as the victim, now must come to your aid, to comfort you as the person who microaggressed.

Let's try very hard not to put the victim in that position.

I can't tell you how many times victims end up comforting the microaggressor.

So, sit with your discomfort.

When it comes to microinvalidations, I'll tell you the same scenario about the doctor,

about the title, it happened to me just a couple of weeks ago while I was presenting

a workshop with another doctor, a male this time.

The person who was introducing said, "Now I'd like to introduce Dr. So-and-So and

Rosemarie Allen."

And he did the best thing that anyone could do in that situation.

He said, "Oh I'm sorry this is Dr. Rosemarie."

And that was everything to me.

Because had I corrected them then I would've come across as an arrogant, pompous person

who demanded to be called doctor.

And if he wouldn't have said anything I would've felt that slight.

It would've made me a little bit uncomfortable.

Because these things happen so often they wear on you day after day after day.

Another response to a microinvalidation, if someone says to you, "Oh I didn't get

that job because I'm Hispanic."

Please do not say, "Are you sure it's because you're Hispanic?

Maybe it's because of blah blah blah…"

That is a no-no.

When someone tells you about their experience and if they feel it was based on racism, sexism,

homophobia, xenophobia then your response should be, "I'm sorry that happened to

you."

Or, "Oh my goodness, I can't imagine what that felt like."

Or, "That couldn't have felt good.

Is there anything I can do?"

Those responses, help that person to feel validated.

Just remember that we all see things through our own lens.

And it's very difficult, especially if you think of yourself as a good person, it's

hard to believe that other people would openly engage in these types of activities.

But to totally invalidate that experience it makes the person who was microaggressed

feel much, much worse.

So, I hope these things are helpful to you.

I hope that as you go through life and when you microaggress, because you will, that you

will first, again, forgive yourself, do intentional work to avoid it, and keep in mind some of

these very simply strategies that can help the victim feel a lot better.

Thank you.