Let's welcome our next speaker, John Sullivan. Hello, everybody. Sneak preview. I'm John Sullivan. I'm the executive director at the Free Software Foundation since 2011. I've been with the organization going back to 2003 in various kinds of capacities. It's a real pleasure to be back here again. I want to thank Bradley and Tom and Karen and Richard for putting this dev room together. It's always an excellent set of talks. It's really honored to be a part of it. I do want to plug another awesome conference while I'm up here, which is Libre Planet. It's happening in Cambridge in the US, March 24 through 25. Deb Nicholson, who just spoke, will be one of our key notes there, along with Gabriel Coleman, Richard Salmon, and Seth Schoen from EFF. So at the FSF, we want all software to be free software. So basically, proprietary software shouldn't exist because it infringes everyone's freedom and leads to horrible consequences along the way. And in order to achieve that, we need to have a really huge movement. And one way to get to that movement is to make sure that everybody, not just technical people, but not just developers, but that everybody understands what free software is, why it's important, what the ideals behind it are. So we talk about that goal by saying that we want to make free software a kitchen table issue, and something that families talk about around the dinner table, along with other political issues, like TPP or anything else. Or it's like my family on the couch in front of the television sort of issue. But the point is to get regular people talking about it. And this talk is related to that goal and also related to the ongoing work that we're always doing to help people understand and use free software licenses properly. And I think it'll be a pretty short talk, maybe famous last words. But the point here is pretty simple. I'm going to share the results the next 18 minutes of your life are blank. But I'm going to share the results and the rest of this talk of a very short survey of sites or places where people get software, and especially places that distribute a mix of proprietary and free software, and look at to what extent those places are telling users what the license of that software is and whether that license and that software is free or non-free. So I think this is important because free software right now is everywhere, but basically invisible. And I think that what we'll see in this survey will help explain why that's the case. I think it's something that we as a community, including the corporate partners and members of that community that we work with, need to work on. And also, RMS wanted me to talk about it. So a couple of years ago here, too, I gave a talk on chooselicense.com run by GitHub and highlighted a few of the ways that I thought that that site kind of biased users or developers towards particular licenses and didn't describe some of the licenses entirely accurately or fairly. And a great dialogue came out of that presentation and GitHub actually made some changes to improve the information on chooselicense.com. So I guess I'm also hoping that if we talk about a few sites in this presentation, that some of those sites will maybe also be interested in making some changes. These examples will be pieces of software, entries for software that you can download. I'm not recommending or recommending any of these programs. I picked them basically because they're either free or proprietary, not because they're programs that I actually use. So I said free software is invisible. One of the main examples that I mean by that is Android. It's by far the largest, the operating system with the largest install base in the world today. No commercially available Android device is actually all free software. Every device has some amount of proprietary software on it. And we know of a lot of the apps for Android are proprietary. But we also know that what makes Android go, the fundamental building blocks of it are free software. So we have, what, a billion, two billion monthly active users around the world using free software. But how many of them actually know that they're using it? And I was inspired by James's talk this morning. I don't know if anybody saw it, but I had to throw up some two-fock lyrics that I thought of as I was thinking through this presentation. So to start with, we need to look at the ways that people get software. They order tapes from 675 Mass Ave in Cambridge. They go to Babbage's and buy it in a box. Anybody remember Babbage's, even? They download it from the web. They use that package manager in their Gnu Linux distribution. They get it from app stores, targeting their mobile devices. From the application interface itself, programs that I'm gonna talk about, like LibreOffice and Firefox, have an actual menu bar option where you pick tools and add-ons or tools and extensions. And that ends up taking you to your website, which you can go to separately as well, but it's integrated within the application. So I kind of consider that a separate category. And then also more developer-oriented code hosting sites like GitHub that people do use for distributing software. That's already compiled sometimes, but even if it's not, it is a place where people get software that they then go on to use Libs. Of course, software also comes on things that people buy. They might not go to Babbage's, but they still go to Best Buy or they still order things online. And devices that come with software in the box or are loaded onto the devices. And that's a separate problem that we're tackling through our Respects for Freedom hardware certification program to help let users know, or potential customers know, that a device that they're buying actually contains only free software. But we're gonna talk here today about the downloading individual programs. And I'm gonna look at the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, the Chrome Store, Firefox, LibreOffice, Apache, OpenOffice, Savannah, and GitHub all in the next 13 and a half minutes. And as we look at these things, I'm gonna focus on the last, sorry, I'm gonna focus on a list of questions here for each of these sites. So when you're looking at an entry for a program on that site, is there a license field at all? Does it say what license the program is under? If it does, is the information there clear? Does it seem to be accurate? Does the field indicate whether the license is a free license or an open source license? And can users search for programs that fall under any particular licenses? So we can start with the App Store from Apple, except we won't because the App Store is so hostile to free software that there's really no point in looking at it. It's so inextricably connected to DRM and the devices are so locked down. Technically, you can install a free application on your own device if you get a developer signing key and do it yourself. There's restrictions on them being able to redistribute anything signed with your key, et cetera. So when we're talking about, we have a lot of work to do here that doesn't have anything to do with putting the license information on the software that's in the App Store. So let's move on to something that's a little closer, the Google Play Store. These slides are gonna be a little hard to read. We have just enough lovely Brussels sunshine to wash them out. But the Google Play Store interface, the entry format here, I think it takes three slides to cover. Yeah. And you'll have to trust me. If you can't read the text there, but none of these metadata fields for this program next cloud indicates the license. For the lawyers in the room, we'll clarify that there is something up here that says permissions. That is not legal permissions. That is technical permissions. So it describes what kind of Android permissions the program has to request in order to run. But there is no field up here for what the license actually is. I haven't checked, I admit the Google Play app view. I don't have the Google Play app, it's proprietary. But my understanding is that it also does not list the license information for any of the applications there. The next slide example I picked because it does include in the description that the developer put there a link to the GitHub issue tracker. And so if you're familiar with GitHub, you can actually track down where, what the license is. You can find that information or it's GitHub repository, but it's not presented for people that are not that savvy. And it's also not in any kind of structured data field that could be searchable or discoverable outside some pretty close reading. And you'll see a lot of this in the Google Play store where developers will put the information about the program being free software open source in the description. But there's no field for it. And just FYI, the license for next cloud, according to the GitHub repository appears to be GPLv2 without specifying only or any later version. But I spot checked some of the files in the repository and they seem to be under GPLv3 or any later version. So situation there might not be quite that clear, but we know that it's intended to be free software and there's no indication of that in the official entry format. The Chrome Web Store, this is the Ublock Origin extension. And according to its source repository, it is licensed under the GPLv3. But it appears from spot checking its source files to also be or any later version. But again, there's nothing here that conveys that. Much more compact interface, fewer fields with information, but no statement about the license. The Windows Store. Look, we have a winner, top free apps. So, I don't know. No, not that kind of free. The Netflix logo is kind of a giveaway. However, we do actually have a leader so far. This is the entry for VLC in the Windows Store. And there is actually a link to, I think I have a laser on this. Yeah, I've never used it. There is a link to additional terms, okay? And that link takes you to a page on the VLC site, which describes the license. Actually, it's not as clear as it could be because it talks about the general licensing policy of video land that produces VLC. But it does tell you that most of their software is available under GPLv2. And it does point you to information about how to figure out the license of a particular program that they distribute like this one. So, this is the best thing we have so far. It's making an effort to say what the terms are and points you to a reasonable place to read more about them. Also, if you needed any proof, where is it? It says here that this is not compatible with my device. So, I did not take the screenshot from a Windows phone. It was from my computer Linux system. Firefox. So, this is again UBlock Origin. And, I think we have a new leader, maybe unsurprisingly, over the Windows Store. This does have a indication of the license. Sorry, this looks so terrible. It looked fine on my own projector. So, we have license terms here. New general public license version three. But this is a splash screen to talk about user freedom and why it's important. So, that's another good way besides just indicating the license of the software that users are looking at. It's another good way to communicate the importance of those ideals. And I think it's really great that they did that. Firefox does allow non-free add-ons. And so, it was interesting to look at the contrast between those, the free add-ons and the non-free ones. This is the Evernote extension for Firefox. And it says, where the other one said GPLv3, it says custom license. So, this seems to be some kind of euphemism, custom license, but it's actually kind of true. So, finally one you can kind of read. When you click that link, it goes to a custom license, which says you are free to use Evernote's web clipper with any of the application services offered by Mozilla. So, it's not free software. You can't use it for any other purpose. Doesn't give you the right to share it. Everything not granted to you here is covered by default copyright permissions. So, not free software. That's not especially clear for users who won't know the difference between a custom license and other kinds of licenses. LibreOffice has a view like this for their extensions. And this actually is, I like what they do because they show the version, different versions of software can have a different license. It's possible what happens. And so, they actually maintain a recent version history and have a column for the license for each version. And this is for the chord diagrams extension. It indicates the license as continued GPLv3. Once again, doesn't specify or any later version or GPLv3 only. So, what does a proprietary LibreOffice extension look like? There aren't any. So, I think that's pretty awesome. LibreOffice has a policy that all of their extensions distributed from the official site are free software. So, there's no issue here with being able to differentiate free software from proprietary software. And the statement is pretty clearly on the front page of the extensions repository. Before we have LibreOffice, we had OpenOffice, which became an Apache project. This is the same extension I showed in the LibreOffice repository. That's the chord diagram extension. You can kind of see a similar release listing format down at the bottom there, but it happens to be missing the license column. So, they aren't conveying that same kind of information. And my understanding is that proprietary extensions are permitted in the Apache OpenOffice extension repository, but I had a really hard time finding what might be an example of that because I'm not familiar enough with Apache with OpenOffice or LibreOffice extensions to know what to look for. I did look to see if there was an ever-node extension for OpenOffice, apparently there's not. But I would doubt that in a proprietary extension case, since there's no license field for the free extension, there's probably no license field for a proprietary extension either. And we have just a couple of examples of code hosting sites. Savannah, one operated by the FSF for GNU and also some non-GNU projects. Maybe unsurprisingly, does specify the license information of projects and even says whether it's or any later version or only when it comes to the GNU licenses. But I don't see a way even on Savannah to search by license. There's something that I couldn't find on any site or app store type thing that I looked at. GitHub has been doing quite a bit, has made some changes I think over the last year, a little bit longer to communicate license information for projects. And this is a clip from the UBlock Origin page on GitHub. You can see they have a row at the top there of these little tags. And one of the tags says what the license is, GNU GPLv3. If you click that tag, it goes to the actual license file that's in the repository. And in addition to the copy of the license there that the developer uploaded, you also see kind of a summary at the top of what the license means, what the permissions are, what the obligations are. So I think we can talk about the accuracy or if there's better ways to phrase the communication about what the permissions and obligations are. But I think that this model is pretty cool and something maybe we can work on getting adopted in other places that it's not just showing the user a copy of the license, which we try to make the GPL understandable for anybody. But obviously with limited time, the summary of what users' rights and any obligations are is very useful for people deciding whether to download a piece of software or not. I also though on GitHub couldn't find a way to search by license. I don't think that's there yet. So what did we learn from this quick survey? So for one thing there's plenty of other sites and application software distributors out there that I didn't look at. FDroid is a major one. I was gonna contrast that with the Google Play Store but didn't have time to fit in in here. They do list some license information there. But we learned that next step for a lot of these channels like Google OpenOffice in particular is to display license info at all. That's certainly the first step. Also learned that sites that do display license info can still be made better. In particular, it was kind of a broken record about the or any later version point, but that is really important because it really does specify what versions of the license a user can receive software under and redistribute it under in particular. And nobody seems to provide searchability by license, which I think is important for many reasons. I think that when we're talking about general public users maybe it's more important to provide a way to search for software that is free rather than by any particular license. But when it comes to say commercial uses or corporate usages it seems pretty important to work towards getting some of these sites to provide searchability even by particular licenses. So you can see all of the GPL license extensions, GPL v3 license extensions or all of the Apache license extensions, et cetera. We have tried to change this already. We've had conversations with some of these companies and projects asking them to add more license information and also to add if not a full search capability, at least a way to a place we could link to that would show only the free extensions so that we could be sure that we were not directing our supporters and our users as we distribute software towards anything proprietary. And so we've gotten a lot of explanations. I'll be charitable in not calling them excuses but reasons why people don't have this information there already. Believe it or not, bandwidth, every byte is sacred. Interface clutter, not all that persuasive given interfaces that we saw, the three screenshot Google Play interface I think has room if they want to put it there. This was a big one. They don't want to disparage the proprietary software. So especially for things like the Google Play Store, the Windows Store, where they accept a mix of proprietary and free software, they don't want to make their proprietary constituency seem less good. And I think when it comes to that one, that's just sort of a clashing worldview thing. We do think free software is better. So of course we want to promote it more. They don't agree, they're trying to balance these needs but I think there's probably a middle ground here we can find that allows people to make their decisions about whether they want to download the free software, proprietary software without being too editorial in ways that these companies aren't comfortable with themselves. There's also the fact that most of the software at least should tell you what the license is after you install it. So it's not as though this is the only opportunity for users to learn about it, but that's not enough. You have to download every application and start it before you learn what the license is. That's not efficient, that's not user friendly. And in some cases, because free software can be sold and is sold in places like the Google Play Store for money, this doesn't get to you until after you already install the software. And the biggest one is the claim that users don't care. And this is one of the biggest things that we have to break through. It's a chicken and egg problem because if users aren't told or aren't informed about whether software is free or not free, then how are they supposed to care to begin with? It's sort of like saying that people don't care about healthy food in a world without nutrition labels on the food. They don't have the ability to make the choice. So how can you even measure whether they care or not? The context there determines the things that people are able to care or send a signal about. So providing better information has twofold effects. Both enables users who already know why free software is important to act on that and send a stronger signal to the software distributors and developers. And it also gives people who don't yet care an opportunity to learn, to be exposed to the information, something we can point to in advocacy materials and educational materials. So some conclusions, ways to take action to try to fix these problems, make this better. All these sites have some sort of feedback mechanism. If you care about this too, then you can send a message using those channels. Also, of course, the out-of-band communication, tweeting at people and advocating inside your companies if you happen to be at one of these places or projects. Move toward a more consistent system for conveying and communicating license information. SPDX is a project that has, this is a goal that we've been doing some work with at the EPSF lately. And basically, you saw the variability in the license fields that were there. Everybody's using a different vocabulary, a different name for the same license. So this effort to standardize a set of abbreviations and names for licenses could be really helpful towards getting a format that works for the user-facing interfaces and the app store and all the extensions or repositories. You can send pull requests. I don't think the source for Google Play is online, but the sources for a lot of these other places are online and you could actually submit some patches. And in the meantime, until we get some better change here, we can do third-party providing the information. We're trying to do that through the free software directory to list and communicate software that is free, even if it's not labeled from the places where it's primarily distributed. And I do wanna acknowledge that getting the copyright license communicated doesn't really end the story here. There's lots of other risks that come to freedom that come along with downloading pieces of software. Getting the copyright license information communicated clearly won't necessarily help people understand the patent risk of the software that they might be using, but it is a big step. And I think if we can fix this, we'll have something to build on in order to continue our process of growing and amplifying this movement, especially for non-technical and non-licensing savvy people, which is, frankly, most of the people that we need to talk to. Thank you, I don't know if I have time for a question. Pretty close. Two minutes, all right. Anybody have a question, comments? That's good to know. I think typing the license, we have that problem with descriptions being non-uniform, but if they're providing a way to do it, and that'll probably continue to get better over time, that's great. Sorry, the question was that GitHub does provide a way to search for license fields. It's in the advanced search area, and you can also use the open-ended full-text search to search for the license cross-repositories. In the back. Can you shout? I'm sorry. Can you shout? Yeah, so the question is what about the domain or language-specific package managers that are out there? I think you're right that a lot of them, well, I've seen at least a lot of talk lately that a lot of them are providing confusing and incorrect license information. I think Lewis is looking at that. I didn't look at it for this presentation, so I would recommend seeing what he's been saying about it. Lewis, Mila, in the back. So, sort of. So it's not, the question is, besides the usability and kind of communication issues, are there also compliance issues raised by this? There are other, the obligation for most licenses comes in doing the right thing, and the software that the user actually receives. So, the copy of the GPL will still be in there, license notices will still be in there, even if the metadata on the user interface doesn't show it. I think that's not an issue, but an example of an issue that is related is that if you contribute an extension to the Mozilla Extensions Repository, you are asked to choose a license for it. And we've encountered actually quite a bit of confusion from people thinking when they upload it and they pick the license, that that ends, that's all they need to do in order to specify the license for their project. So they're not including a copy of the GPL or any file headers, they're just clicking the Mozilla dropdown, and thinking that's enough. And that could be a compliance issue, or at very least it's kind of a licensing hygiene issue that's related to this. Yeah, yeah. I'll say I try not to use the mother as an example, because we're talking about non-technical or people in general who are all genders and ages. But I think that, yeah, it's not necessarily the name of the license, that's the key thing. It's for that use case, it's whether it's free or not free. So I would like to see search by license also provide search by characteristics of that really important characteristic, yeah.


So what if you're starting an email newsletter and you have past clients, customers, students, friends that you think wouldn't mind receiving it? The problem is that some email services like Aweber from last I checked because a couple of years ago won't let you just upload them to your email list. They will like, they will want to send out an email to them saying, are you sure you wanna join this list? And I think that might be automated, I'm not sure. Other places like MailChimp do allow you to just upload people, but they're strict about how many people click unsubscribe when you send out the email. When you send out the first email to them, hey, welcome my newsletter or hey, here's the next issue, whatever, if 1% or more people unsubscribe, MailChimp will flag your account and possibly suspend your account. So they're pretty strict about that. So what do you do then if you don't want to, you know, so I think what the services want us to do is actually to individually email or maybe email in batches. You can BCC, you know, use blind carbon copy like five people or 10 people at a time to say, hey, I just wanna let you know I'm starting my newsletter, email newsletter and we're gonna have tips about this or special discounts on that or whatever. And if you'd like to join, here's the link to sign up for it. And so that's kind of what they want us to do is to like contact people individually or in small batches on our own without using the software and having those people manually type, yes, I wanna join, here's my email, you know, here's my email address. So that's for like the most legitimate way of doing it. If you wanna just take the chance and upload people and send out a welcome, you can, but again, you might hit that 1% threshold pretty quickly about, okay, each newsletter cannot have more than 1% of unsubscribes. So anyway, I hope this helps. Oh, and by the way, another way of doing it is to post it on your social media. Hey, new email newsletter, you know, if you're interested in keeping up with our updates and tips for, you know, our best articles or our best videos or whatever, our best industry news, here's the link to sign up. So be sure, of course, if you have an email newsletter to mention it, you can have a launch of the email newsletter by having concerted effort to get people to sign up for it and then mention it every now and then so that people remember that's still there.


Thank you Dean Blank. Today as we reflect on the unspeakable losses that our country suffered one year ago and as we remember the 18 precious lives of our own alumni struck down on that day we find ourselves bereft of speech. All words undone as the poet Grace Shulman has written in a special issue of the Michigan Quarterly Review and yet because the University of Michigan is a great center of learning. We also find that in spite of everything we must speak. We must reconstitute those undone words if we are to give voice to our nation's unanswered questions. That is why on this terrible anniversary we are drawn here to the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy to ponder the impact of September the 11th on our national and international society. Today there are other places in which we will express our grief. There are other places in which we will seek a measure of consolation and support and comfort among our friends and our houses of worship in vigil on campus in our homes and neighborhoods. We have also chosen to observe this date by holding an academic symposium to consider the meaning of what has happened. It takes courage on any given day to open ourselves fully to discussion and debate. To question received opinion. In the 12th century of the common era the Iranian Muslim thinker Al Ghazali recalled that in his youth I poked into every dark recess and made an assault on every problem. I plunged into every abyss. I scrutinized the creed of every sect and I fathomed the mysteries of each doctrine. So it was in other traditions with Abelard, Spinoza and Pascal and so it is today with every scientist scholar or artist who has been emboldened to seek a universal deliverance from error. That undaunted boldness is unmistakably a hallmark of the University of Michigan. As members of a community embracing most of the world's major cultural perspectives and religious traditions we probe dark recesses in all disciplines and unflinchingly we plunge into unexplored abysses. This spirit of free inquiry is the glory of a great university and in an increasingly challenging world we accept our responsibility to uphold and safeguard this protected arena for unfettered questions and ongoing debate. It is especially appropriate then that we have gathered today as the first beneficiaries of the Joshua Rosenthal Education Fund established by Mr. Rosenthal's family and friends to strengthen the Ford School's public policies, important work in advancing understanding of international issues. To help us wrestle with the unique issues surrounding the events of September the 11th, 2001, we look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel, Dr. Brent Scowcroft, President of the Forum for International Policy, whose reflections on the Middle East have been much in the news lately. Dr. David Featherman, Director of the Institute for Social Research, who will discuss public responses to recent policy developments, and Dr. Marina Whitman, Professor of Public Policy and Business Administration, who will speak on changes and international finance. I want to express our gratitude to the family and friends of our alumnus, Josh Rosenthal, for choosing to honor his memory in this way. It was here at Michigan, in a climate of intense discussion and debate, that Josh Rosenthal cultivated his interest in public policy, an interest that is deeply embedded in his family's heritage, and memorialized also in the Daniel Rosenthal Legislative Intern Awards at James Madison College of Michigan State University. Josh's public policy involvement led to his master's in public administration at the Woodrow School in Princeton University, and eventually to his career in international finance in the World Trade Center, where he was working on the day of his death. To tell you more about her son and the purpose of the Joshua Rosenthal Education Fund, let me introduce Marilyn Rosenthal, Professor of Sociology in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, Director of the Program and Health Policy Studies on that campus, and Associate Director of the University of Michigan Medical Schools Program in Society and Medicine. Dr. Rosenthal is a medical sociologist who has written extensively on the self-regulation of physicians, medical mistakes, and comparative health systems of the United States, Great Britain and Sweden. She earned her PhD from the University of Michigan as a non- traditional student returning after her children were in school. Her honors include a Danforth Fellowship for Returning Women, a University of Michigan Hopwood Writing Award, a Swedish Visiting Scholar Award, a University of Michigan Faculty Recognition Award, a Distinguished Faculty Research Award, a Distinguished Faculty Award from the Michigan Association of Governing Bodies of State Universities, and a Baxter Distinguished Submission Award for her 1995 study, The Incompetent Doctor Behind Closed Doors. Dr. Rosenthal. Thank you. Thank you, President Coleman, and welcome to the University. I know that the faculty is glad to have you here, and at the same time, they will do everything they can to complicate your life. Thank you to Becky Blank, Dean Blank of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and all her staff for the thoughtful and gracious way they have made this event possible. Thanks to General Scowcroft, Professors Featherman and Whitman for their participation. My family and I have the deepest gratitude to those of you who supported the Josh Rosenthal Educational Fund. And I thank all of you for being here today to help us think about Josh and think about our country. One year ago, on September 11th, 2001, at 9.06 a.m., the life of my family and the life of my country, of our country, came together in a profound act of political violence. Our much loved Josh Rosenthal died in a war for which he had not knowingly volunteered, and for cause that had not been articulated. We may say the same for all of those who died on September 11th. And perhaps many Americans feel this way. I don't believe in preordained destiny, but I do believe that history plays out in the intersection between the individual and society. And Joshua's life story is a remarkably American one. It reflects the dreams and the aspirations of immigrants drawn to our shores for generations. And it reflects the individual opportunities that America sometimes provides. Tragically, his life story ends in another intersection between where he worked and where some others see and how some others see America's international role. Joshua's maternal grandfather came to this country in 1902, a penniless 12-year-old. In the hundred years since, his family has achieved educational, cultural, and material success. Joshua's life reflects that, as did the lives of many who died in those towers. In his 44 years, Josh used his considerable grace, intelligence, whimsy, warmth, intellectual curiosity, and energy to useful purpose. Well educated, unafraid of risk, he thought deeply about his world, and he thought deeply about his personal relationships. This is a marvelous mixture that endeared him to many, many people. He found an unexpected professional path in the world of finance, although he always retained an interest in public policy. His career took him through an enviable array of economic and cultural worlds, ending up four years ago at Fiduciary Trust International, a well-respected global investment firm. The view from Josh's office on the 94th floor of the World Trade Center South Tower was stunning. All of New York City, the financial capital of the world, and that, of course, was the view of his company, and that as our American global enterprise. Other mother's sons from countries who share the planet and share the century had a different view. For them, the towers symbolize America's overwhelming global domination, both economic and cultural and militarily, particularly in the Middle East. For them, the towers symbolize the dark side of American society and culture. They were fanatics consumed by rage beyond reason. Josh had a lot of unfinished business in his life, natural, for a 44-year-old, and our country has a lot of unfinished business, shaping its role in the world, shaping the fight against terrorism, and shaping a strategy to achieve a more equitable world. We are proud to link Joshua's name to this program at the University of Michigan, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Our hope is that the lectures and the other activities in Josh's name will contribute in some small way to thinking about our country's global responsibilities. Thank you for being with me today. Thank you, Marilyn, for that portrait of Josh, and thank you and all of the friends of Josh Rosenthal who are here today for choosing to memorialize his life in a way that will be meaningful to future generations of students. I would like to, at this point, introduce our three speakers, and I think I'm going to introduce them all at the same time, and then move from there into the substance of our talk today. I am particularly pleased with our keynote speaker, who is General Brent Scowcroft. It is a great pleasure to welcome him back to the University of Michigan. He was last year on campus in 2000 when we were named the Gerald R. Ford School. When he came and participated in a variety of events, a number of students came up to me afterwards and said, you've really got to get this guy back. And he was therefore one of the first people we thought of when we were thinking of bringing someone back here for the Rosenthal Memorial Lecture. General Scowcroft is an internationally recognized authority on foreign and military policy issues. He served as National Security Advisor to Presidents Ford and the first President Bush, and he's been a member of several important commissions and committees that have addressed various aspects of foreign and military policy. He's a very visible spokesperson on international issues. Those of you who read the papers know that he's willing to speak his mind into ask hard questions. His most recent honor is the PEC Presidential Award given by the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institute, honoring his individual achievements related to the American presidency. We are very deeply honored to have General Scowcroft with us for this occasion. Following General Scowcroft, Professor Marina Whitman teaches at the Ford School as well as at the Business School. Professor Whitman has spent much of her career as a practitioner working on policy and public affairs at General Motors, though she also spent a substantial amount of her career in the White House at various claims, working on the Council of Economic Advisors. And she has a substantial academic background. She's someone who really spans all of those worlds. This gives her unique insights into how the globalization of commerce has affected both countries and corporations. Given Josh Rosenthal's involvement in the world of international finance, it seems only appropriate to ask her, one of Michigan's primary international finance scholars, to talk about how that world has changed over the past year. David Featherman is director of the Institute for Social Research here at the university. Trained as a social psychologist, David has long been interested in questions of how people's ideas and attitudes develop and change and how those ideas in turn affect their behavior. Under his direction, ISR has undertaken several studies that have explored the changes in people's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors since last September of 11th, and he will be talking about some of those studies and their results. General Scowcroft, we're very pleased to welcome you back to campus. President Coleman, Marilyn Rosenthal, Dean Blank, ladies and gentlemen, is this on? It doesn't sound like it to me, but I'll try to do without it if it isn't. Thank you for those generous remarks. It's a great honor for me to be here with you today and to inaugurate the Josh Rosenthal lecture series on this special and tragic day. I just attended a brunch in which Mrs. Rosenthal gave a touching, you can't call it a eulogy, but very touching, and it reminded me again, as you all do here, gracing the hall on this particular day, of both the tragedy that we remember today, and I hope that this lecture series will remind us over and over again, not just of the tragedy, but of the obligation we have to ourselves and to the world. We're going to discuss today the world since 9-11, and I will focus on the changes in that world in foreign policy and military policy. Now, you have to recognize that attitudes certainly infuse policy, but I'm going to leave it to David to talk about the attitudes and I will focus on the policy part. In order to talk about how things have changed since 9-11, I think it's important to glance at what they were before. And so I want just to remind you of a few things. The decade of foreign policy before 9-11 I think can be characterized as one of significant drift. We had just been relieved of the awesome pressures of the Cold War, and that relief sort of expressed ourselves in turning away from responsibility and to treat foreign policy more like a charity to which we could give or not give how and when we wanted it. So we made no deep inquisition into what might be going on in the post-Cold War world, and we did not confront really the implications for us of being the only superpower in the world. In that decade I think we can characterize significantly by Frank Fukuyama's book The End of History, in which he said democracy and market economies are sweeping the world by triumphant and in essence our problems, that is the problem of aggression, war, and so on, are at a pass at an end. On particular issues with the Russians we had gone from the notion that Yeltsin could do no wrong to Yeltsin didn't matter and neither did the Russians, except when we needed something from them. With China there was an error of pretty good feeling but little substance to it. In Europe there was a gradual estrangement between us and our closest allies. As they became more intent on integration and looked inward we reacted by becoming contemptuous and unilateral. Terrorism was a problem, we recognized it, but considered it fundamentally an issue of regionalism or special issues and protected by our two great oceans didn't really absorb what we now know about it. Then there were of course the what I would call persistence issues, the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, India-Pakistan and the Middle East, where efforts were made, and I'll talk about that in a moment, with success. In the military field it was a period of exploration of a new world. The military likes to call it the revolution in military affairs and they're really focused on advances in information technology and in weapon accuracy. And the field that could unfold when the commander knew everything that was going on with his own forces, with the enemy forces, thus reducing or eliminating the fog of war, which was probably the main ingredient in success or failure, and also the ability to hit what you're shooting at, which overwhelmed the problem of supply in war. So that was going on, but mostly academically, and the real focus, militarily, was on what was called the bottom-up review process, and that is faced with what we thought was a notional will where we might have to fight two military contingencies at once, putatively in Iraq and in North Korea, what would be required. But all this took place in a environment of military cuts. In intelligence there were big cutbacks in personnel, and stations in embassies were closed in many parts of the world, not withstanding the kind of unknown ferment that was going on in those areas. And the focus was really on a new round of satellites, which gave us all kinds of new capabilities to look down on the earth. Then came the Bush administration. They came in, this is my interpretation, not theirs, with not with a strategic concept, but with some strategic tendency, some general notions. And those were several, as I would state. There were three principal problem states, the Russians, the Chinese, and the North Koreans. There was another bit of a different character, and I mentioned it only because of the subsequent history, and that is Pakistan. Pakistan had suffered a couple of years earlier. Another military coup with a dictator who showed no signs of returning to democracy. And so while we were currying favor with the Indians, or this was the idea of the new Bush administration, we were shunning the Pakistanis. There was a reluctance to engage in peacekeeping or nation building that our military, the notion that our military, was designed to fight and to kill people and not to build nations, and therefore that should be done by somebody or some other kinds of forces. There was a tendency toward unilateralism, and this is where the notion of the single great power did have some effect, that since we had responsibilities in the world that nobody else had, we should no longer be bound or constrained by others, but free to carry out our own interests, which after all in our eyes were the interests of the world as a whole. And then the last, there was a sense that if Bill Clinton did it, it had to be wrong. And that's not unique to this administration, that happens to every new administration. In military affairs, there was a huge push for ballistic missile defense. There was also a push toward making concrete the revolution in military affairs by looking at the procurement budget, taking out some things which were indicative of a warfare of the past, tanks, fighter aircraft, battleships, sea control and so on, and focusing on the new technology, but it was more, it was more generality than it was specific. There was also the new notion of power projection, that one of the ways we would project, protect the United States is to have forces that would fight out there. We would push conflict away from the United States. And there was also a push for a for a bigger budget, general, but hopefully focused, hopefully the administration thought on the revolution in military affairs. Then came 9-11. The initial reaction to the awful tragedy was a great coming together in the world. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in NATO's history. Jacques Chirac, sort of the Bette Noir of the Alliance, said we are all Americans. The Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, which is particularly important of course, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, a lot of Syria, a lot of unlikely people reacted by coming together against this atrocity. The president declared the war on terrorism our number one priority and seemed in his rhetoric to make it his the mission of his presidency. The focus was on terrorism with a global reach, that is the focus directly on al-Qaeda as a global, not simply a product of regional tensions, whether they be in Ireland, Colombia or other places, but terrorism that is worldwide. Some of the early strategic tendencies that I have mentioned were modified. Russia changed dramatically in our eyes. This had started before 9-11 but it was emphasized after 9-11. After all, Russia had suffered badly in Afghanistan, had problems along its southern border, had great experience with Afghanistan and offered their support. China as well began intelligence cooperation with the United States and of course China had its own problem of terrorism on its western frontier. Most remarkable was Pakistan. President Musharraf despite what you have to say was less than warm treatment by the United States, cast his lot thoroughly with the West at some great risk to himself and thus in effect made possible the military operation in Afghanistan. Nation building, we are reluctantly coming around to the notion that wars don't solve the problems, they just decide who's going to solve the problems and especially in Afghanistan it's not going to go away and one of the problems we had after the Russians left was that we were not sufficiently devoted to the issue to try to build something there and thus we laid the ground for a Taliban regime. Unilateralism is still an open issue. The president responded warmly after 9-11 and said we want coalition, we want to go together, we want to do this as a world community. We adopted the notion of floating coalition which is as Secretary Romsfeld said the mission defines the coalition which is a step in the right direction but we did not reach out to those who offered military support in the initial phases of the Afghan conflict and said no we can do it ourselves we don't need we don't need help which was I think a a mistake allies especially given that we didn't have great we didn't have significant forces on the ground allies are a pain in the neck you have to take care of almost no country other than the United States is able to sustain its troops at any distance from its homeland so we have to take care of everybody else so it is a pain in the neck but it is also a problem for us to say no we don't want your battalion we can do it without it and so we're still we still have some problems here ballistic in military affairs ballistic missile defense is almost has disappeared from public consciousness it's still going on to build it but but it is never mentioned with respect to Iraq now despite the fact that ballistic missile defense was supposedly designed for the rogue states so there but overall there has been a significant change in attitude in the attitudes with which the bush administration came to power the military response was swift and brilliant we utilized technology we tested these ideas about information technology together with unarmed aerial vehicles why we call them that i don't know but anyway we used to call them drones but now it's much more exciting it had been neglected by the military because the air force can't imagine anything flying without a pilot in it I'm an air force officer so I can I can see that but anyway we the technology was phenomenal it used to be that you would have little spotter airplanes out and so on and they would see something and they would call back in to a headquarters who would then call the b-52 squadron and they would come out and they would have coordinates and they would drop their bombs now you have a uav circling around flying out there piloted by somebody a thousand miles away not by somebody right there a thousand miles away and can pipe in to the b-52s of the c-130s or whoever is up there on alert the pictures that the uav sees so the bomb droppers see exactly what the people who are picking out the targets see it's an incredible system and and operated almost well it operated virtually flawlessly the flaws were when what we saw wasn't what we thought we saw but anyway it was it was terrific we were probably better against the Taliban and al-qaeda because I think we we really didn't fully appreciate this was a different kind of war and what we had was al-qaeda what we were going after but al-qaeda was being protected by the afghan government which we call the Taliban and so we really focused on the Taliban and but they you know they quit when it was clear that they were being defeated like afghans do they change sides and and went away al-qaeda did not we didn't realize that until until later and we let a lot of them slip through through bribes and all all other kinds of things that was a process of learning what war on terrorism really means but that I think on the whole was a successful phase it's winding down now we're still going after some so but it is winding down but that phase that is a military phase is probably over I think there will not be probably any other nations who will want to be the next Taliban and that's going to change the character of the war it's going to change it to be fundamentally a war of intelligence with some military operations probably very small in the areas where al-qaeda is likely to flee to from Afghanistan or it still has strength either in weak countries or the weak government like for example Indonesia Yemen or a non-existent government like Somalia where in fact you may have to send forces in but I think there there's going to be another afghanistan in the war on terrorism now one of the things that means it's this revolution of military affairs and it's high-tech weaponry which we displayed so brilliantly in Afghanistan is virtually useless we don't need it and we can't use it to go after the shadowy networks that represent al-qaeda terrorism also changed the nature of intelligence which this is now the nature of the war we have always had since the national security act of 1947 a big line representing the border of the united states and the CIA operated on one side of it and the FBI on the other side of it and that was a pretty strict border and it worked it worked pretty well despite the fact that no two organizations get along completely well it it worked during the cold war and it worked primarily because the problems were all outside that border other than a few intelligent counter intelligence problems where there were difficulties unfortunately in a war on terrorism there are no borders the terrorists don't care the border means absolutely nothing so we have problems which you've seen in congressional complaints congressional investigations were we ready for 9-11 did we miss something was there an intelligence failure well the problem is you've got these two organizations and you have to hand off from one to the other when you come to the border of the united states now that's not an easy problem bureaucratically but it's a worse problem culturally because the CIA and the FBI have different cultures and they come at problem at the problem from opposite ends the law enforcement culture the FBI starts with an issue starts with a problem you focus on something you know about a crimesman committed or something and you build your evidence you're looking for particular things that will support your case and you protect your evidence that you gather so it will be pure to present to a jury the intelligence analyst does exactly the opposite he looks at a chaotic bunch of things happening out here and he says is there a pattern that i can find in all these seemingly disparate events that i can put together and see something before it happens and prevent and that's the real problem we have with messing our intelligence uh it's not stubbornness it's not resistance it's a very different cast of mind and the question we need to ask is do we really want to change our law enforcement officers our FBI into intelligence analysts and you don't do it incidentally just by putting a different label around his neck and saying you're now an analyst you're no longer a law enforcement officer that's one of the things that we are that we're grappling with right now the terrorist networks uh and i say are very shadowy indistinct the cells are very loosely tied together some of them are for all practical purposes autonomous but what al-qaeda and the name means the base what al-qaeda has done is take these discontent malcontents whatever you want to call them uh and give them training so that they know how to build bombs so that they know how to evade customs so that they know how to falsify documents it turns them from run-of-the-mill scruffy malcontents who might throw a stick of dynamite somewhere into skilled operatives who know how to do things more skillfully we cannot win this war by ourselves we cannot do it we need help we need the help of every intelligent service who is willing to work with and we hope all of them are willing to work with us in this case uh just take money laundering for example and i hope i'm cutting into yours marina uh what can what can we by ourselves do about money laundering insignificant not insignificant but can't begin to attack the problem of terrorism that way so we need help from everybody that's the first thing we have to we have to reach out not because we believe instinctively or don't in multilateralism as a concept we need it in our own self-interest to be able to effectively prosecute this war now the conceptual nature of the intelligence problem is is fairly simple every time the terrorists talk every time they move every time they spend money every time they receive money there are traces all of these involve some activity uh the task is first of all to pick out that activity and to pick it out when there are millions of other similar activities and transactions going on by innocent people and there are a couple of problems there first of all how do you sort it out and how do you especially when they're talking a variety of strange languages how do you know what you're getting when you get it uh and secondly how do you sort out the ones you want from the others without invading the privacy unacceptably of all the innocent people doing these transactions uh that is a problem we're still working on i think it is probably not impossible to do it by using technology rather than people to do uh the the sorting we we uh the congress passed shortly after 9 11 the patriot act to help us deal with these issues of privacy and and the intersection between the fbi and the cia but i'll be honest the privacy act was more it was done in a hurry and i think most of the lawyers in the justice department reached in their desk doors and pulled out all the stuff that they had they would like to get through the congress and threw it in the patriot act it was not focused on the problem that we have in the war on terrorism homeland security isn't it interesting that we've gone 200 years and have not needed a department or whatever you want to call it of homeland security that is an indication of the new world that we're in we have never needed a department of homeland security never needed it because we were secure but behind our to uh uh oceans or we had the technology that could keep conflict from us uh we do need it now we need it has three missions really the threat what are what are the terrorists trying to do to us the vulnerability where are we vulnerable and what can we do to reduce that vulnerability and lastly what do you deal if what what do you do if there is an event how do you respond efficiently and effectively uh there were brilliant acts of heroism on 9 11 but the fact is that the police department the fire department couldn't communicate on their radios with each other so it's that sort of thing uh one of the things we don't know is how homeland security will relate to this new military command being set up the northern command but the important one of the important thing is to remember is the however useful homeland security will be in reducing the opportunities for terrorists to wreak damage as they have it is not a solution to the problem you cannot win the problem on terrorism on the defensive by cleaning up afterwards or betray we are so open there are so many points of vulnerability in our systems which most most of which have been built without a thought to this kind of problem that we can't possibly cover them all so homeland security can mitigate the effects it cannot solve the problem we can solve it only on the offensive can we win it yes what does that mean it doesn't mean winning it like a peace treaty on the battlefield Missouri it means reducing it to the kind of situation we have with organized crime it's still around but it doesn't prevent the average citizen from living with a sense of security but we can do that we can do that by breaking up the networks and destroying what we can find and at least reducing the skill levels of the others where are we now this will be a long struggle it's very hard we don't really know how to do it well we've never done this before our great military machine is your largely useless in this kind of a conflict uh and the questions are will a national mood hold i'm encouraged one year later to see the outpouring around the country hopefully we can sustain that for as long as it takes which is has to be reckoned in a matter of years not months another problem we face is that international cooperation is waning our focus on things like the axis evil and iraq have led others to ask you know what our goal really is because they don't see the connection that we point out in these different kinds of conflicts our relationship with europe continues to deteriorate not dramatically but fairly steadily with russia we still have a good relationship but it is fragile and when we do things like sending troops into uh sending training troops into georgia to help them fight terrorists on their border uh it gives the russians pain to say the least and we're also deep in central asia right now with temporary military bases but that also gives the russian problems uh the persistent issues but i mentioned china before uh we're okay with china we've gotten we're still getting intelligence cooperation with them and they're supportive uh what they will do in the un is is another problem uh the persistent issues there have been ups and downs korea india pakistan the administration did a brilliant job that is probably the worst potential crisis in the world today it is still a crisis but there's been a calming effect thanks to uh our intervention taiwan middle east where we have blown hot and cold well that's what's happened over the year let me end with a cautionary note we cannot just deal as i have this afternoon with the terrorists and the consequences of their acts we must also go after the roots of terrorism and that is a long-term problem and not just one of poverty it is much more complex but it demands our attention as well thank you very much the general is not an easy act to follow as clearly the people are departing know that before i focus on the subject that i've been asked to talk about today sort of what's happened in the international economy i'd like to mention one thing and that is i started today by attending a singing of the mosart requiem in one of our local churches by a group community group and this was a very moving event but what is particularly significant about it is that it's part of what was has been called the rolling requiem that is all through this long and difficult day all around the world in some time zone at exactly 846 in the moment in the morning the moment that the first plane hit the world trade center some group will begin to sing Mozart's requiem started in american Samoa when we were all still asleep and it will end just west of there i guess when when we're going to bed 24 hours later and i thought that this was a some a bright note in this difficult day that groups literally all around the world have come together to remember the people who died that day in this way now to say a little bit about the economic side of what's happened both in the u.s and in the world since last september 11th the two big economic questions after that day of course were one with the u.s economy collapse and two would the movement toward the integration of the global economy survive the shock and those two questions were actually very closely interrelated because at that time virtually the whole world was in either slowdown or recession and it was pretty well agreed that the united states was the only available locomotive to pull the world economy out of that slump well the answer a year later is i believe no to the first question that is the united states economy did not collapse and yes to the second question the progressive integration of the world economy did survive the shock actually at the time that the world trade towers fell the u.s economy was already in what some people say is a slowdown and some people as a say is a recession and of course it was momentarily stopped dead in its tracks by what happens as you know no planes flew people didn't go anywhere and things kind of ground to a halt and some industries were particularly devastated airlines, tourism, hotels and so forth and those particular industries have not yet recovered either here or elsewhere in the world but on a overall scale that drop was very short-lived our economic overall economic activity declined only in that one quarter of last year since then growth in our country has picked up though slowly and although it's not at the rate we'd like to see most people feel that a double dip recession is unlikely although never impossible of course there have been of course some significant economic downsides costs have increased for producing and distributing goods security costs insurance costs the difficulties of logistics uh president bush and prime minister hetian may hear the day before yesterday to talk about speeding up the progress of trucks across the ambassador bridge which is very important to uh the economies of michigan and an ontario and in particular we've returned rather faster than anybody thought possible to government deficits and while in the very short run the government deficit probably helped keep our economy afloat for the longer run it's a complication that we hadn't expected to have to contend with for quite a long time to come and it certainly turned on a dime well it was more than a dime but it certainly turned quickly um and of course there was the stock market collapse but i have to say that the stock market collapse was apparently much more due to the harm that we did to ourselves through scandals like and ron and all the ones that followed then to the harm that other people did to us through uh the events of nine eleven so our economy while you know people still suck their thumbs about uh how well it's doing seems to have come seems to have been remarkably resilient now in the global dimension again in all aspects but one this sort of pulling together rather than pulling apart of the global economy in the economic sense and i'm not talking about the issues the general skullcroft was addressing um it's been i think doing okay world trade of course dropped a little bit uh again right in the aftermath of nine eleven and in the aftermath of that kind of world slump but it's picked up substantially and is actually expected to grow quite quickly maybe as much as 10 percent next year uh against a good many odds the members of the world trade organization managed to agree on an agenda for the next round of world trade liberalization called the doha round and the significant things about that is first of all there was a lot of concern after about after the debacle in seattle whether it would happen and secondly it's been dubbed the development round now we still have to deliver on the promise implicit in that title but at least it was a good place to start and more and more countries countries like china like russia have been scrambling to join the world trade organization and president bush got what's colloquially called fast track the authority essentially for american negotiators in in trade negotiations to negotiate effectively um although he got it by a squeaker three votes and he had to give away enough in the way of added protection for the steel industry and for american agriculture that there's still some controversy over the game was worth the candle and that still remains to be seen american investment in so-called emerging markets uh building plants and starting um businesses is holding up and surveys in fact indicate that most multinational companies expect their foreign operations to expand in the next few years and actually a larger proportion of companies have said that after 9 11 than before and even the so-called anti globalization protesters are really protesting more about how globalization is taking place than about the fact that it is occurring financial markets which were josh rosenthal's particular focus recovered extremely fast after 9 11 though latin america is still having some significant problems there's been some real contagion from the contagion from the argentine debacle uh into other latin american countries like brazil and uruguay but the international monetary fund has stepped in to prevent disaster this administration in the united states has changed its position on that and has um supported that that intervention by the international monetary fund and the basket cases of few years ago the countries in southeast asia are in fact doing quite well as far as foreign aid goes president bush has committed us to a 50 percent increase in our foreign age which is nothing to be brag about because we have one of the lowest proportions of foreign aid in proportion to our gross national product of any developed country and finally after a lot of squabbling the issue of providing drugs affordably to poor countries for their catastrophic diseases is finally beginning to move the one area where the integration integration has taken a step backward i would say is an immigration and it's not surprising obviously that people that the insecurity we feel uh president fox's initiative in which he tried to institute a dialogue with the united states about the movement of people across the u.s. mexican border has ground to a halt universities like this one and many others are concerned about the impact on foreign students of tightened up immigration rules and that is one area where the movement has been in a pulling apart direction inevitable but i hope we will be able to find a way to protect our security which we must and at the same time maintain the flow of people and of ideas that has always been a hallmark of this country so putting up the picture all together i would say that in the economic and financial sphere the world is pulling together rather than pulling apart we have learned once again shockingly painfully the lesson of john dunn the 17th century divine and poet that no man and by the way no country is an island at home we have had a renewed sense not only of vulnerability but of community and david will be talking more about that and how durable it is uh in the immediate aftermath of 9 11 wall street firm competitive wall street firms which usually were ready to scratch others eyes out actually helped each other and lent each other people and facilities and there is still the sense in this country i think uh some of that globally the u.s has been reminded that it is not an island of security that as the general said for the first time we feel we do need a homeland defense and furthermore that social and economic developments in the rest of the world and particularly in poor countries which have not really become part of this integrated circle do affect us and are the lessons that we've so painfully learned worth the lives that were lost of course not but if we learn that lesson well then at least some good can come from this tragedy the 19th century satirist ambrose beers want once wrote that war is god's way of teaching the americans geography well in this case through terrorism we learned a particularly painful lesson in geography including how to pronounce the names of some countries that we had never heard of or thought of before but also a very tragic lesson in the dark side of globalization because the terrorists are just as much a part of globalization as increased trade and investment and foreign aid but global economic development since then i think have at least given us a slate on which to etch its brighter promise the brighter promise of globalization if we have both the will and the wisdom to do it thank you of course i want to begin by thanking the rosenthal family for this uh most inspirational intellectual commemoration and i'm really honored to be part of it i want to address three dimensions of american life that were affected by the events of september 11th and also by the continuing specter of imminent terrorist attacks over the past year and i'll do that with the benefit of an isr study how americans respond which started four days after those attacks by interviewing a representative national sample of over 700 americans by telephone we've been re-interviewing the same individuals and households at six month intervals since and we're just completing the last of those as i'm speaking and if you're interested in the the charts and information that i'll be drawing from they are available on the isr website and i want to recognize my traugat and my colleagues all of whom have been uh inspirationally dedicated to this study over the last year the first thing i want to address is the slowly healing american psyche throughout the nation the events of september 11th angered and wounded us as individuals nearly half of us when asked how much is the attack shaken your personal sense of safety insecurity set a great deal or a lot and only 14 percent of us said not at all when asked if we experienced what mental health researchers believe our key indicators of depressed mood and stress perhaps even depression many of us revealed higher levels of personal distress than isr researchers had measured in decades and not surprising these symptoms of mental stress or distressed mood were more extensive in those who felt less secure or safe as a result of those attacks these psychological impacts were also more prevalent and deep among those who paid closest attention to the news about the attacks and of course we remember the repetition of all those images children children were affected too and not only those living among those who suffered direct losses or who resided in the east we asked parents and other adults living with children under 18 if a child showed signs of distress increased nightmares more easily annoyed or startled had unusual trouble concentrating reports of children's distress tend to lie below what adults say about themselves on similar indicators but then we know from research that children suffering trauma seem to to actually tell us they suffer more than their parents are able to see and report on their behalf six months later now i'm talking about february or march of this year our sense of pay personal safety and security had improved but barely so there were anthrax attacks real and imagined the closing of post offices and of government buildings in dc official warnings and alerts of various colors were pervasive when measures of mental distress or depressed mood there were some early signs of resilience then and the economy including our confidence as consumers in the economy's future seemed to be slowly on the rebound but whatever psychological recovery we gained after six months has not accelerated much in the past six months we've not gained that much more ground today fully 40 percent of us say we feel less safe and secure now than before the attacks and that compares to 47 six months ago and 49 percent just after the attacks fully one third of us fully one third of americans we interviewed now three times still feel modestly or deeply shaken by the attacks and nine percent say they are even more shaken or insecure parents parents say of their children that they show some fewer signs of distress and that's terrific and that they need less reassurance about their safety than just after the attacks that's good too and we hope these improvements continue but why this persistent psychological burden recovery from trauma of the scope of 9-11 even among those not directly touched by it is slow as psychiatrists, child psychologists and pediatricians report from clinical research about past disasters quite different events like Oklahoma City or the Challenger disaster and if you saw the New York Times this morning there was extensive coverage of the slow recovery post trauma this slow recovery this persistence is also common among adults and children exposed of course to repeated traumatic events such as those who live in the Middle East and maybe that gets exactly to the point Americans believe a terrorist attack is imminent even if not in their own communities when asked last March to forecast the likelihood of an attack of bioterrorism on the U.S. in the next five years more than half of us gave it better than a 50-50 chance and those who then felt most shaken thought it even more likely most of us then however said that the attacks were much more likely to occur somewhere else in America it's going to happen but it's not going to happen where I live now as an aside this is an interesting displacement of apprehension and its source and it challenges public health and safety officials in this new Department of Homeland Security to prepare communities of households and citizens for their mobilization and response in the event of a localized attack if they're constantly thinking that it's going to happen somewhere else as of today as we're now completing the last round of our surveys nine out of ten of us think a terrorist attack or some similar act of violence will occur somewhere in the U.S. relatively soon just as in this past March today more than three-quarters of us say there is a greater than 50-50 chance of a bioterrorist attack in the next five years so therefore in this context of impending threat however real or imagined the psychological burden of 9-11 weighs heavily on the American psyche of adults and of kids too a second theme and now in the form of a question a new national unity in spite of this persistent psychological burden and impending threat there's some good news and the good news may be related to our need to come together in our time of recovery and healing September 11th brought us together in new ways as a nation and evoked the sympathy and empathy of the world in new ways in surveys of all kinds Americans expressed unabashed patriotism pride in living in the United States an appreciation for the values of freedom and inclusiveness that stand us apart as a unique democracy and despite the connection of the attacks to terrorists mobilized out of the near in Middle East Americans reject an isolationist foreign policy and importantly even in regions of the country more heavily populated by new immigrants Americans express positive sentiments like these immigrants make the U.S. more cultured immigrants are good for the economy immigrants do not increase crime rates six months after the attacks in March we we re-asked a series of questions long by used by ISR to assess both positive and negative feelings and beliefs about American ethnic and racial groups we call them the feeling thermometer questions compared to national studies during the late 1980s onward mainly from ISR's national election studies our post 9-11 data indicate a far more positive feeling toward hyphenated Americans if I may use that phrase a warmer more inclusive embrace of common fate perhaps the inclusiveness applies to Americans with ancestry in the Middle East too but for some mainly Muslim and Arab Americans at somewhat more modest levels however for those who live in the Middle East who are resident in the Middle East including Palestinians Arabs and Israelis as contrasted to Jewish Americans the feeling thermometer is less positive so the good news is that some new national unity seems to persist at least for now we took a hip from political terrorists from the Middle East but our response as patriots and citizens to now has avoided jingoism and isolationism having said that I don't want to under overstate a new civic engagement or unity it is at best partial and possibly ephemeral for example president and mrs bush put out a call for volunteers to help America indeed for many months after the attacks on new york random acts of kindness and more organized volunteerism seemed part of the daily news and it buoyed us and yet recent social science data indicate that volunteerism across the country is not up and whatever blip may have occurred in local communities just after 9-11 seems to have diminished except for one group and that is from the minority of long-term committed volunteers and that's many people in this room I'm sure who increased their hours of commitment by about 38 percent since September so in some ways to use Robert Putnam's now well-known caricature of civic engagement in this country we're still bowling alone and there's still a gap between what we say we feel and believe in these feeling thermometer questions and what we're willing to do that is the kinds of hours we're willing to spend on behalf of others outside our family but the seeds of a new national unity and locally active civic engagement seeds laid in the sorry aftermath of 9-11 may yet come to full flower and now just a final few questions a few comments about national values and their preservation during the war of terrorists and the war against terrorists and I call this reasserting national values just after September 11th Americans expressed strong but qualified endorsement of policies to stem further acts of terrorism in America in our survey those more shaken and less secure were more likely to support a wide range of security enhancing measures for the rest of us however there was less support for things like random searches wiretaps and for broad scale targeting or profiling of Arab Americans six months later March those who were still shaken were the stronger supporters of these measures but then too also with qualification and what I want to emphasize is this Americans have remained cautious in sacrificing their own and also their neighbors personal liberties even at the moment of our greatest tragedy and threat to both national and personal security this trade-off of personal liberty for personal and even national security runs to the heart of American values of who we are as a people in a nation these trade-offs we guard so carefully speak volumes to the world watching how we live out our democracy even under our psychological burdens and even with our fears of future terrorist attacks in America so on this day of commemoration I would reflect on how we are seen from abroad and now I'm not going to be talking in closing about ISR surveys but some taken by the Pew Research Center in Washington DC over 40 countries are involving over 30,000 individuals in those countries research still ongoing early results while it is regrettable in those surveys that some have said we deserved what happened to us in New York and Washington the overwhelming view the overwhelming view from abroad is that those attacks were not on our culture instead they were about our power and how we use it in the world to some perhaps we use it to unilaterally they say to others perhaps we use it to the disadvantage of poor nations some fewer say it was about our foreign policies about Arab nations but ironically even in those Arab nations indications of a love-hate-hate-love relationship complicate the claim of those who would see us inevitably in a war of civilizations so what I want to emphasize from these international data what the voices from abroad seem to be telling us through the data is so important on this day namely what we were admired for as a people and nation is our openness the opportunities we afford to citizens but also to immigrants our extraordinary technological capabilities and our system of higher education that's what they emphasize however we respond as individuals in America to 9-11 or even god forbid another domestic tragedy we must never lose sight of the values of this great nation that are so well captured by that statue that now stands even taller in New York Harbor thank you my last comment was that the solution to terrorism is not simply to deal with poverty that it's more complex than that 15 of the 20 I believe were Saudis now not all Saudis are rich but there aren't any poor ones I think we have to look at a couple of things at least and this I'm going beyond whatever expertise I have one is education and that is in much of the region poor people get education and get their children fed by sending them to madrasas many of whom preach hatred and the extreme form of militant Islam but I think more fundamental is an issue of globalization and the alienation that it has brought we were surprised by Seattle and rightly so because I think globalization to us to the Europeans to the Japanese and so on gives the promise of greater prosperity and cooperation in an integrating world but of the 190 nations in the world well over half are poor weak and really unable to provide some of the very basics that their citizens require for those countries and those people globalization represents an onslaught of forces that they can't even comprehend much less cope with and I think for them it looks like an assault on their family values their cultures their way of life and they feel alienated they feel resentful and many of them feel hatred and if there's a symbol of globalization it's the United States and so I think we need to find a way that globalization and advancing technology can bring prosperity to all rather than alienation to most thank you in closing I'd like to thank again Maryland Rosenthal and the friends of Josh Rosenthal who all made this event possible and ask you to join me one last time and thanking the speakers


Hey, what's good y'all should boy down from the down showing friends and we back for another k-pop reaction video and today We're actually gonna bang with NCT dream high sauce dance practice. So I definitely want to do this for y'all Listen check this out me Alanya James will be back real soon. They just busy as you know, the bro James It's he's getting back to you know for health. He's close. You know something about like 85 90% right now, but he's definitely working on it right now So he appreciates y'all love and prayers for real and the bro Alanya. He's dancing a lot So he will be back But we want to make sure that we keep dropping these videos for y'all So best believe when they get back I told y'all before we're gonna do the music videos and we got a couple videos that we actually want to do together Because we just want to be able to talk about the choreography and make y'all have a good time and laugh with us You feel me? So Make sure you hit the like button Make sure you hit that bell make sure you share and make sure you subscribe and also Thank y'all so much for doing the voting about me doing the dance battles and choreography around the world There will be a playlist coming out this Sunday. So this Sunday I'll do the first video for that playlist.  I'm reading the comments I just want to say thank you to our vote for the poll and last thing Thank y'all so much for going on my dance videos and making comments on them So I would do another poll today If you would like to see more dance videos on myself dancing and showcasing my skills and kind of give you a Breakdown of my dancing. I will make a playlist for that But I will need y'all to confirm So I'm gonna do a vote on that So once this video is over you should be able to go over to my page like community posts and see me Doing a vote about me putting up my own personal dance videos. All right, but other than that y'all Let's go ahead and get into the video. Y'all know what y'all came here for in CT dream. Let's do this house sauce Here we go y'all and three two one. I always love doing countdowns All right, let's see what they do with this Whoa good ripple Yo and house that's jack in the box that moved from here Let's go Let's go. He's very smooth. Hold on y'all. I Want to go back. I felt like I missed some things. I want to go back. I want to go like the first 20 seconds I want to see that again. Let's go back. I feel like I missed some things Let's go. Let's see Way to get into position better. Okay Hey Hey, I Love that ripple coming in Let's go. I love that step man. I really do I use that in house dancing Let's go Better work that shout out to each other's Gabino. Let's go. Let's go Stay with it. Hey, wait again. You'll spot in the back. That was smooth and come right there. Yes, I Like this is nice. This is nice hold on So I like when they came here like this movement right here I love this how it was coming into that. That's real smooth. That reminds me I don't know if y'all familiar with this artist Check out Aliyah made her rest in peace. Check out Aliyah's choreography She said always have like movements with our arms. Check her out NCT remind me of that moment that kind of took me back to the 90s choreography So that was pretty tight. Let me see what they do right here. We have 45 seconds y'all. What we doing? Yeah, yeah Cook it Cook it cook. Yeah, you better cook. Oh I actually bang with this Lot of different elements how they work in this choreography So here's my thoughts on this It's a lot of detail What I mean by detail is this it's like when they come in here You might be paying attention to this right check out their footwork at that same time So it's like when they came with like the jack-in-the-box like I use that jack-in-the-box in house So when I'm in the house dance where I do a jack-in-the-box and I bounce so they was grooving right here It's like everybody will just see their legs But you can look at their arms and you see them just grooving it back And so when we go back to like maybe let's go back to like one minute 13 seconds It's like they really was getting in right there. Let's start at 103 Just it's like a lot of stuff even when they just clapping or they just doing this They got crazy footwork NCT be moving their feet and I'll be paying attention to the little details like that Like that's cold. Wow. Wow. Yeah, that's cold That's a cold move And right here slide Don't that quick little feet right there to turn make that transition And you got to pay attention to everybody because everybody's putting in work Let's go Let's go. What we at? Hey, that little slide did look like usher Let's go. I like this choreography. I already do I Will have fun doing this one Because that's so many elements Uh-huh, let's go You got a lot of pops to his hits. He'd be hitting. I really like this with the this right here Yeah, so I'm saying they work they feed here by that up come on That was nice, uh-huh Hey Yeah, mommy a line dancing grown up in Cleveland. We always had steps like that, you know, nobody get nasty. Oh You know we were riding in this it's too much happening. Oh My goodness. Oh My goodness, hold on stop. We're going back. You have to appreciate that moment Because they took so this is the group, right? Okay, y'all saw the group. Okay, cool Did you see when they took the whole formation over and and still look good and clean in a formation? Like, you know how many choreography I watch and people getting any formation They start going somewhere else and you'd be like, where are you going? They literally bounce right over together Let's just watch that again We're not about to just make a dance fractal reaction and not review this like I'm not here for the ooze and eyes I'm here to like pay attention to what was really dope This was cold. This is really cool. I hope I went back one time. Let me see Yeah, let's start right here because this was Every every band gets crazy at the end. I love that Look at that and this boat boat boat. Come on. Let's go Let's go Respect the crump. I like that. Thank you. Let's go Let's go Hey Good man. Yeah, man Especially when you come to the end it and you still got to go hard You don't get lazy on the choreography and they didn't let's go NCT Yeah, yeah, good work y'all for a good word seriously good work Like all jokes aside, it's really really good work really really good work I really enjoyed this choreography because of the fact that I know When you watch this choreo that a lot of stuff if the average Joe just came in there We're not practicing our training not getting that down the way they have it Yeah, you're gonna really mess up really bad because NCT got full work all day Like the track is definitely dope. You know I'm saying it's a catchy track You know something first on music while the track is very catchy like you'll get a crowd going You know the fans of k-pop and the fans of just music would get hype with that like you'll just get hype at a festival real talk The choreography though Yeah there's one of those where if you can mess up easily if you don't pay attention Easily you can mess up because there's so many elements like you think this is gonna be nice and groovy And then they just hit you with some quick footwear You think it is just gonna be fast fast and then they slow it down and they break it down again So they just bring those elements and you can see that they know they know dance like they're not just doing choreography Like you see them using house movements to jack in the box You see them using current movements You see them using the the culture of hip-hop in their movements like you see them working So respect to this choreography for real, but look I got more videos to do for y'all So I just wanted to make sure I show my appreciation to this NCT dream hot sauce dance practice And don't forget me James and Lonnie are doing the music videos. That's why you don't see them yet We're gonna do them together all three of us together. You know how we act So other than that y'all listen, I appreciate y'all. Thank y'all so much. Don't forget to vote Don't forget. We got the dance battles choreography playlist that's gonna be on their dance from around the world So we're talking late twins all of them boogie frantic pop and pee and probably some of y'all favorite choreographers So you have choreographers that y'all actually like that y'all want me to watch that choreograph for you know for these bands Send them for a cinema and I would love to watch them review their work You know friend just give them credit where it's due. All right, but other than that y'all I'm gonna get up out of here Actually, I'm gonna come back home. I'm a professor at Ohio State So I'm actually about to go teach my kids and then I'm gonna come back and I'm gonna record for y'all All right, and yes, I will be putting my own dance videos on here But I'm not gonna put them on here if you're not gonna watch them All right, but much love to y'all. Thank y'all so much for your support. Seriously all just all jokes aside Thank you so much. I see y'all soon peace


Hi everyone, Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com, coming at you with 2020 Top's Finest Baseball Flashback Edition, an online exclusive. Two bucks, pick your team at number eight. Now, if you bought at least one team, you get one entry to chase the White Sox in this break. So we sold all the other teams except for the White Sox, so we're going to grab everyone's names from Josh, down to Josh, Josh Freedman, down to Josh Filo, and everybody in between, and we'll take out the White Sox placeholder here, and everyone has a shot at the White Sox. Name on top after seven, five into two, seven times, one, two, three, four, and seven in final time.  So let's print that baby and rip. Name on top after this will be Tier One Baseball. Nick will be helping us. Did you see that trade off there? That was crazy. I was like, oh, right, you don't have a knife, so I'm going to... All right, and Tier One after this, I think we'll call it a night after that, ladies and gentlemen, this is my Friday, not a long week.  We like that, we appreciate that, but I'm feeling it now. So thank you, everyone. Game track, power, you guys got nothing. You know, Angel's bullpen will blow this before the Dodger bullpen blows it. That's facts, although you think so, that changes everything then, yeah, that runner on second. Oh, Luis Robert already, and that is a weird thing, although you just don't have a problem hitting that for my Dodger. That's the problem. You guys, like, trout, othani, rindone, I don't want to see those guys, Fletcher, yeah, it will, Jeff. Tier One will break. That is the last break of the night. It's coming up right after this. And everything else will go off tomorrow. Jason Jassy will be back. Will he be back? He'll be back. Two o'clock Pacific, five o'clock Pacific. Mother-in-law's birthday for him, he was out for a little bit, out early, he'll be back tomorrow. All right, well, right out of the gate, Luis Robert, base right here. There you go, and it was Ian Rockwood who bought some spots, got lucky, and got randomized the White Sox, so your spots are probably covered without one guy. I don't know, maybe, it feels like a refractor, maybe, for sure. I don't know what Luis Robert prices are these days. Those refractors are one per box, J.D. Davis going to the Metz, Kevin, but come on, there you go, you got it, you got it, you got it. These green ones aren't numbered, but everything ships in this flashback set. Online exclusive is what it was. Is there one autograph in here, maybe? Maybe there's no autograph, maybe that refractor was it. Nice rookie, Nico Herner. That guy's pretty good. We're on Alvarez, just got activated the other day, and we've got a gold, Lourdes Gouriel Jr. Nice, 19 out of 50. That's for the Buffalo Blue Jays, Josh Velo. Buffalo! Daniel Graham with the Stroze, Moopy Betts, and Anthony Rendon, Angel's gear right there. And it might be, especially for some of the, I mean, if you get any of these cars, it'd be worth looking up on the secondary market, because you might be surprised, because this is an online exclusive, you're not, I'm pretty sure Bubba Starling's not lighting it up in the secondary market, but you might be surprised at what he does go for relative to other rookie cars you might find of his, possibly. I mean, this is an online exclusive, so I want to say that the valleys are boosted a little bit. There's the one per box Refractor, Chris Archer, Pirates, Tyler Hack, what a rough trade for the Pirates. I like Chris Archer a lot too, and you know, rough for him too. Battling injuries and whatnot, so we'll see if that pans out in the end. Kyle Lewis, Raking, Mariner, Zac T with Kyle L, and a gold Moopy Betts, nice. Rhea with my Dodgers, Hori Seager up, 26 out of 50. Another Luis Robert, nice. Just a base, but hey, to get one in each box, Ian, not too shabby at all. Excellent. Let's see what these box toppers have in store for us. We got a White Sock, Lucas Geolito, he's looking every bit the number one prospect he used to be, and the second one from the second box is another White Sock, Jose Ebreu, not bad, Ian. There you go, and there you have it. I'm Joe for JasperCaseBrates.com, that was two box picker team number eight. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next time for the next one. Bye-bye.


What's up everybody jason von josephs case breaks calm we just sold out a little quick rmb for eight teams in 1920 cup hockey six box case break pick a teams number 15 You're gonna get a piece of the jets capital senators Islanders predators wild hurricanes and Leafs Random number block style and if you want to know how that works, of course here it is I hear everybody that's around on there from zero through nine and It goes by the first number next to the dash on the left side of the dash So good luck guys here you go dice roll it here Because her names Numbers so let's roll and we got ourselves a two and a four six times. Good luck one two three four five and six Don at the top down a dawn at the bottom after six times six times here one two three four five six Seven down to eight All right, so don you have seven and one any one-on-ones for these teams will be yours mark with four Mike tower nine Ryan with five Joshua chair was three Brian You have zero any in our redemptions for these teams of your spear with six Peter with two and Don with eight So hey guys, this is for these teams here. I just put them on the list You guys know which teams they are but eight teams and again With sell three more spots straight up if anybody wants to grab the last three teams Sabres at 1799 journey New Jersey Devils at 800 bucks and conducts at 899 in about five minutes If no one sells it out I'm gonna put them in a little random number block style like this break here And we'll just sell pieces of those teams for a fraction of the price for a number block style So appreciate you guys