Download !!LINK!! Dj Khaled - Hold You Down Video
Gabriel Molle
The music video released coinciding with the single on August 11, 2014 via WorldStarHipHop and made its national television debut on the popular program 106 & Park on BET as well as MTV Jams. The music video was directed by Gil Green and features Khaled's newly endorsed Bang & Olufsen headphones.[3] In the video, all artists of the song are seen in a mansion performing the song.[4] The music video was taken down from YouTube in 2017 after Khaled was involved in a lawsuit with Bang & Olufsen (makers of the headphones advertised throughout the video).
In the song, the artists emphasize their willingness to do whatever it takes to support and hold their partners down. They are willing to go to any length and make sacrifices to ensure that their loved ones feel secure and loved. Whether it's providing emotional support, material possessions, or physical presence, they promise to be there unconditionally.
The chorus reinforces this message, with the artists affirming that they are the ones who will hold their partners down. DJ Khaled, August Alsina, Chris Brown, and Future all claim to be the individuals who will provide stability and support in their relationships.
As of midday Sept. 24, a recording of the Khaled event had not yet appeared online. Associate professor Rabab Abdulhadi, the senior scholar of the department that hosted Khaled, posted on her personal Facebook page after YouTube pulled the livestream down, urging people to send questions to the department's Facebook page.
Once the anti-CRT movement is entirely undressed, you will find that familiar face of racism standing right in front of you. They once wore white hoods to cover it up, but now hide behind a carefully designed movement to outlaw an intellectual movement that is made up of the same racism that it endeavors to strip down.
That all changed last year. Right wing American politicians fixated on Critical Race Theory (CRT) as their new political boogieman, indicting it as \u201Csubversive\u201D and \u201Canti-white,\u201D and scapegoating it as the new villain threatening American values. Pundits and politicians, holding court on the most prominent news channels and holding the highest ranks in American government, claimed that \u201CCritical Race Theory is as racist as the KKK.\u201D The hysteria rushing from the corners of rightwing halls of power devolved into a full-fledged political and legal onslaught on Critical Race Theory, with elected officials moving to make it illegal to teach in American classrooms.
In short, the political movement against Critical Race Theory seeks to make the phrase tantamount to an indictment synonymous with hatred, shutting down anybody associated with it as \u201Canti-white\u201D and, ironically, racists themselves. Furthermore, it seeks to create a culture of policing teachers and students, advocates and administrators committed to racial justice \u2013 or anything remotely associated with it \u2013 as \u201Cwoke\u201D social justice warriors bent on exacting \u201Creverse racism\u201D against white people.
Stripped down to its nude body, the movement to ban Critical Race Theory is the latest effort to sustain white supremacy. Capitalizing on the populist fervor seeded by the Trump Administration, its proponents are wielding it as an attempt to cast anybody, and everybody, committed to racial justice as a \u201Creverse racist\u201D and \u201Chater of America.\u201D Their aim, feeding the very racism of Americans clenching tightly onto a past where segregation and subordination of nonwhites was the norm, and holding even more tightly onto the political and economic power attendant with whiteness. However, instead of reading foundational CRT texts like Cheryl Harris\u2019s \u201CWhiteness As Property,\u201D which deftly make that case using the very legal principles taught in every Property Law classroom in the United States and the United Kingdom, those aiming to ban CRT hardly engage with the ideas, or even know who the leading thinkers within the movement are.
Above all, Critical Race Theory analyzes the past and present with an intellectual honesty absent from prevailing discourses. The development of white supremacy required a historical revisionism that cast Native Americans as \u201Cbarbaric\u201D and \u201Cuncivilized,\u201D and colonists as benevolent discoverers that dealt with the indigenous populations with compassion and neutrality. These are the lies that the movement to ban Critical Race Theory seek to uphold, which are more than mere fictions etched into textbooks and memorialized by statues standing tall across the United States, but the very building blocks of a white supremacy the rightwing zealously seeks to protect. Let me be candid, Critical Race Theory is not beyond critique, and members of its community are the first to not only welcome, but intellectual engage with, those critiques. But the zeitgeist rising against is not interested in honest intellectual exchange, or genuinely understanding what pioneering Critical Race Theorists like Derrick Bell or Kimberle Crenshaw wrote during its inception, or what emergent voices like Sahar Aziz or Priscilla Ocen have to say today. Rather, their objective is to slander them without even reading a single thing they have written, fundamentally because the truth they speak calls into very question the white power the anti-CRT movement desperately aims to sustain.
Strategic Inventory (SI) has been an area of increased interest in theoretical supply chain literature recently. Most of the work so far however, has only considered a supply chain without downstream competition between retailers. Competition is ubiquitous in most market situations, hence, interactions between SI and retailer competition merits study as a first step in bringing the conversations and insights from this stream of literature to the real world.
We find that, the introduction of downstream Cournot duopoly competition leads to lower profits for both the manufacturer and retailer. This holds, whether the number of selling season is two or three. Consumer Surplus is also uniformly lower under retailer competition, compared to a downstream monopoly supply chain.
Under a Commitment contract, over two selling seasons, the manufacturer ends up with an advantage, making a higher profit with downstream retailer competition, than compared to supplying to a monopoly downstream under the same contract. The retailers, while competing as a Cournot duopoly, are not able to use the relative advantage that comes from a Commitment contract to make a higher profit, as they are, when the downstream is a single retailer monopoly. The consumer also is disadvantaged by the introduction of downstream Cournot competition under a Commitment contract.
When we compare a manufacturer supplying to a Cournot duopoly downstream of retailers, with, and without a Commitment contract (dynamic ordering), we see that the manufacturer and consumer benefit under a Commitment contract, making higher profits, but the retailer is at a disadvantage.
df19127ead