I just don't see how a gay marriage in any way damages a straight marriage. A while back conservative commentator, Matt Walsh, was on Joe Rogan's podcast and they got into a whole debate about gay marriage. It is here that I think Matt Walsh made a crucial mistake. Let's dive in and maybe you'll see it too. I think of marriage is a certain thing, which is the context for procreation, for the building of the nuclear family. What about people that get married that don't have kids? Are you opposed to that? What if they get married, they decide, you know what, we don't need kids, I'm gonna get fixed. You get your tubes tied, let's travel the world. Well, what do you mean am I opposed to it? I mean, I think that every married couple should be open to life. But what if they don't want to?  If marriage is only for procreation and to bond a family together, what about people that are deeply in love that never wanna have children? I don't think it's not only procreation, but that is one of the fundamental definitional aspects of it. Of course, there's more to marriage just than that. And what about people that are infertile? At the end of the day, we're talking about definitions and foundations. The key questions that we're asking here is what is marriage? And how do we know what marriage is? People love to debate the first question, go back and forth and debate, and yet clarity really comes in the second question. How do we know what marriage is?  That is where we get the definition. You see, I've appreciated some of Matt Walsh's content and based on what I've seen, he maybe identifies as a Christian or a Catholic, but yet here he fails to identify his foundation. Now, on the other hand, if you've watched Joe Rogan, you recognize that he really has no foundation at all. You'd be hard-pressed to find any kind of consistent worldview coming out of his podcast. But as we'll see here, Matt Walsh loses all of his leverage because he abandons his foundation to get on the same level as Joe Rogan. Here, Matt chooses to utilize the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman because of procreation. Now, I totally believe that the reality that procreation can only take place between a man and a woman is a clear indication of God's ultimate design. But when then you look at Joe Rogan's worldview, for him, it's like, okay, so what? They can have children, good for them.  You know, that's just, well, who cares? We go back to foundations again. Is there an objective command or standard that we need to return to? Is there even a God that made us with intention and a particular purpose and design? To Matt's point, yes, God designed it that married couples, one man, one woman would bring new life into this world. But even before children, he made it so that the man and the woman would be a play, a glorious divine play of God that the bride would represent the church and that the husband would represent Christ, that it would be a beautiful God-glorifying union even before children that man should leave his father and his mother and become one flesh with his wife. Why? Well, you might not wanna hear this answer, but because God designed it that way, and we as Christians need to be willing to stand on God's word as authoritative. God's word and his foundation will not return void for the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing the divisions of the soul and the spirit of joints and of marrow and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. It's a personal choice in that I'm not advocating for like a law that says that if you're married, you have to have X number of kids.  Well, because again, it's not about choice. It's about what this institution, marriage is an institution and what is it and what purpose does it serve? And I do not agree with tearing down or changing this definition, especially because the people who have changed this definition haven't come up with a new one. So they say, well, that's not what marriage is. So for thousands of years, we said marriage is the procreative union. And then we had the other side came along and said, well, it's not that. Okay, well then like, what is it exactly? And I know you said, well, it's people who love each other. Two people love each other. But then why two people? Why do they have to love each other? You know, all these kinds of questions. Okay, so here, Matt Walsh is basically verbalizing the stable society argument that marriage between a man and a woman produces the most stable, flourishing societies and families and culture in general. And I don't disagree with that. But is this the primary argument that I would make? No, like I said, I'm a foundations guy. I don't want to just be pragmatic. And Matt Walsh's argument, he's saying that this is what we've done forever. It's worked. Why change it? And then you get those on the progressive side as always that put forward numbers of reasons on why they should change it. This is always the battle between conservatives and progressives that conservatives are saying, you know, we should do this because this is always how we've done it. And progressives say, well, we need to push it because we've been doing it wrong. This is why I want to rely on the foundation and the structure of scripture, not just traditions of man and thinking that, oh, this is the way we've always done it. So that must mean they're good because that's not even necessarily true. Ultimately, I want to be holding to the word of God. That's why these things are beneficial. That's why we should be clinging to these things. Notice the difference in ultimate authority. Is it the pragmatic results that, oh man, this benefits our culture, so let's do it this way? Or is it the word of God? And what God has said, is that our ultimate authority? Is the highest determining factor of our morality a positive outcome? Or is it abiding by what God ordained? Okay, I know what you're saying.  What about they don't want to honor God? I believe that obedience comes out of a restored relationship with God. And so when we're talking to unbelievers, honestly, I'm not too concerned about trying to convince them that same-sex marriage is wrong. I want to convince them that they are a guilty and a sinner before God. I mean, ultimately with the conviction of the Holy Spirit that draws them to that conclusion. But I want to tell them like, hey, this is the problem that you have in your life, and this is how you can have a restored relationship with God. And then through that, they actually want to pursue obedience and what God has commanded of them. Because I believe when somebody submits their life to God in that way, all those other dominoes will fall. This next part is interesting.  They don't have another definition of what marriage is. So wouldn't that mean that just anything could go about and five dudes could get married and three ladies and three ladies and five cisgender and non-binary people could all get married? It's like, what's going on here? You don't have another definition. But honestly, that kind of slippery slope argument really only works if those on the other side are concerned about what's down the slope. But honestly, in our culture, I don't think based on what I'm seeing in media and entertainment and culture that they're too concerned about what's down the slope. In a lot of ways, I think this argument would have been effective like 10 years ago because then you start telling people, oh man, where is this gonna go? Is there gonna be all sorts of weird marriages that are taking place because the standards, the boundaries have been taken off and people might, yeah, equally be concerned. Yeah, well, no, no. It's just this one thing that we got going on and yeah, all that other stuff is bad. These days, I don't believe so. Based on what I'm seeing, I don't think it's gonna be long before we have men and boys that people come forward and say, hey, look, the boy's mature or like it's okay. Like it's all consensual. I don't think it's gonna be too long before we're seeing something like that. And honestly, that's why I'm much more concerned about individual transformation. So they begin to see sin as sin. Because when you reject God's objective moral standard, all you're left is with your own devices, your own opinions, your own subjective standards. And so who's to say that it's just not gonna continue to go down? That's why you need heart transformation. So then you want to cling onto what God has told us to do. As some of you know, I just quit my job. So I am full-time in this ministry and that is so exciting because I love equipping people to follow Jesus daily through the social media content on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram. It's my passion. It's what I love. And through the support of people on Patreon, that is able to be a possibility. If you want to get behind what I'm doing, that would be amazing. If you want to get behind the mission or just really enjoy the content, it would be a huge blessing to me. So check out the link in my description. There are all sorts of perks on there. We do video calls, there's exclusive videos, there is merch discounts, and there is a Discord. So there's a lot of things for you to check out when you are part of that community. It would be an amazing, amazing blessing. So check it out down below and we'll get back into the video. Marriage don't see how a gay marriage in any way damages a straight marriage. I don't see it at all. It doesn't make any sense to me. It just seems to me that people want to be bought. Look, if you wanted to look at logic, especially in our modern society, which is pretty when it comes to relationships, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of all marriages and a divorce anyway. They don't make it. I don't know if anything would damage marriage and damage the institution of marriage. It's the option of divorce.  It's just called marriage. It's a human invented thing. If we decide that gay people can get married too, I just don't see how it damages anything. I don't think it tears down the definition of marriage in any way. It just opens up the possibility that people who are gay won't be discriminated against. Now here Joe Rogan tries to point out some of the apparent cracks with the pragmatic argument against same sex marriage. He points out the divorce rate and he says, hey, look at the rampant divorce rate. It looks like straight marriage isn't super good for society, either because of all the broken families running around. Now you might come back with a rebuttal that the divorce numbers are hyperinflated, especially within the church and it's not as bad, but now you're just getting in the debate of statistics. The fundamental questions are not, does it work or doesn't it? Does it impact us? Does it have an effect on our life? How does it impact society? Like these are important questions to ask in general, but they're not the primary question that we should be asking to get to the fundamental moral root of this issue. First and foremost, we need to be asking, is it right or isn't it? And if you want to go more in-depth about what God says about homosexuality, check the video links up here. We are making the institution meaningless. But it's not meaningless. Well, but you just- It's very meaningful to the people that have it. Subjective symbolic and it's about your own personal feelings. Isn't it though? Well, no, I would say that it's not. Well, if it's not subjective and it's not symbolic. It codifies and protects and gives a name to a thing that actually exists, which are man, woman couples creating people, creating babies. But not always. I could just feel that Matt Walsh was getting so close to identifying his foundation. He knew it wasn't subjective. He knew it wasn't just this fluffy thing that man created and yet he didn't want to identify why he knew that or how he knew that or how he wanted to support that belief that it wasn't just a man-made thing. If I were talking to Joe Rogan, I would say no, it's not just subjective symbolic man-made. It is ordained by God.  And it's this beautiful connection and covenantal relationship that he has ordained in a particular way for his glory. So no, it's not just whatever you want it to be. This is what God has said. Now you might be saying, well, Joe doesn't believe in the Bible, so why would you use the Bible to back up your arguments?  That makes no sense. You're losing all of your leverage.  Now there's a piece in the scripture where it says, answer a fool according to his folly, where you draw out the full ramifications of what that person is saying. You be consistent according to their worldview. That's a solid practice, but if you're never taking them from that place of inconsistency of just absurdity into actual truth, you're missing out. No, Joe asks an important question.  How does that affect you? And Matt Wells says, well, nothing actually, it's just kind of a more cultural scale because right now they're arguing about kind of cultural ramifications right now. They're arguing about pragmatic results of these decisions.  We gotta ask, what is the ideal end for this kind of debate or this kind of conversation? Is it just to win somebody over to the gospel of societal improvement or personal life improvement to say, oh, you know what, the same-sex marriage, it will damage culture in some ways. And they say, oh, you know what, you're actually right. I want society to be a good uplifting, fulfilling place. So I agree with you. Is that the end result that would be ideal for all of us? My goal isn't to just win somebody over to moral principles or biblical principles because ultimately they have better impacts on culture in general, so you should be for them. I want them to place their lives and their hearts in submission to God so that all those other dominoes fall into place that they want to honor God with their lives and how they act and with their marriages and how they orient everything about themselves that we can obey God and his commands, trust that they are ultimately, yes, best for culture, but even when we can't see the results right away, we can know that he is working things out for our good and his glory and we can trust him in that. I don't know who said it, but it definitely applies here. You can tell me in the comments if you know, but what you win them with is what you will win them to. If you win them with pragmatic arguments, you'll win them to more pragmatic arguments. If you win them with God's word and his authority, that is what you'll win them to. Hey guys, thanks so much for watching this video. If you enjoyed it, subscribe because I'm putting up new videos like this all the time. I'd love to hear your thoughts about this in the comments down below and I will see you next time. God bless.


In a review attempting to downplay the role of heme in the link between meat and cancer, funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, they noted that it's important to remember that all the rat and mouse studies suggesting harm from heme didn't evaluate exposure conditions that were representative of any kind of realistic human exposures. Instead, the rats were given heme at levels corresponding to up to 360,000 times the level of meat recommended in the dietary guidelines, but hey, at least you know what might happen if you ate 20 tons of meat a day and were a rodent. What about the human studies? Heme can promote the formation of N-nitroso compounds. Why should we care about the diet-induced formation of these compounds in our gut? Because a number of these compounds are known to cause DNA damage. In fact, one of them, methyl-nitroso-urea, is actually used to induce colon cancer. And at higher levels of meat consumption, concentrations of apparent total nitroso compounds were found to be on the same order as the concentration of N-nitroso compounds in cigarette smoke. Okay, but that was at like two to four burgers a day worth of meat.   What about just like normal meat consumption, like one burger a day? It's not just two or four burgers worth that can do it. One quarter pounder can also do it, and that looks to be about where levels start shooting up. That's one potential way Heme may play a major role in colorectal cancer promotion, the N-nitroso pathway. The other is fat peroxidation, oxidized fat that may also lead to mutagenic DNA damage.  How do we know whether it's the Heme itself is responsible for both these processes? Well, if you give people a Heme supplement alone, you can increase fecal levels, whereas a non-Heme iron supplement appeared to have no effect. A bump with Heme iron, but back down on non-Heme iron, suggesting it's the N-nitroso compounds from the ingestion of Heme that may be accounting for the increased cancer risk. But that so-called Heme supplement wasn't a supplement at all.  So this should be labeled like this, in which case no big revelation. And the same thing with fat oxidation, was it the Heme itself or any number of other things found in a blood sausage diet? The best evidence we have that Heme itself is playing a role is that if you remove the Heme, you can get a significant drop in N-nitroso compound formation. But note, it was only about a quarter, so there must be other factors. And indeed, there was a strong correlation with the amount of nitrites in their stool, which can be involved directly in the production, or found in both processed and, to a lesser extent, unprocessed meat. Now soy appears to have a significant, suppressive effect on fecal N-nitroso concentrations that peaked my interest, since the trigger for my whole deep dive into Heme was impossible foods attempt to recreate the taste of meat using a plant-based Heme protein in place of the muscle-based Heme protein. The company likes to say how the Heme and Impossible burger is Adam for Adam identical to the Heme-founded meat, and so would be expected to have similar effects. But if soy can have a mediating effect, since the Impossible burger is a soy-based burger, maybe that changes things. They had people eat a high meat diet with and without soy, and got about a 40% drop in the concentration of those potentially carcinogenic compounds eating the same amount of meat when the soy was added. Now it turns out they didn't end up making much less. It's just that they boosted their fecal output by about 40%, about a 40% bigger stool size because they're eating about a half a cup of soybeans. But that's good, because bigger poops mean lower carcinogen concentrations and reduced intestinal transit time, all resulting in less potential carcinogen contact with the bowel wall. But this was because they used whole soybeans, which would give them like, you know, 6 grams of fiber, whereas the Impossible burger only has about half that, since it's made from more of a soy protein concentrate. The question of safety then becomes whether or not the N-nitroso compounds formed in our intestines as a result of the Hemar DNA damaging or cancer causing. When you see the term AT&C, that stands for apparent total N-nitroso compounds, measuring just a non-specific broad class of compounds, some of which are definitely genotoxic and carcinogenic. But further work is required to establish that the specific ones that pop up when we eat meat further work that we'll turn to next.


Thank you, everybody, I'm very happy to be here because this is my 10th Euro Python, and it's really stunning to be again with all of you, all the new friends together after two tough years. So today we will speak about self-explaining API. So I work for the Italian Digital Transformation Department, and today I will present you how to design schemas that simplify the API mesh up and interoperability. At first I will explain you the concept of controlled bookabularies, and then how to use them for creating interoperable REST API based on contract-first schema design. At the end I'll show how a central data catalog for semantic interoperability, a lot of words, will support this approach, but don't worry, this is not a talk about semantic web theoretics, and well, for semantic web folks, please forgive me, I will try to make things understandable. In Italy we want to simplify API mesh up, but it's not easy because we are a lot of people, we have a lot of agencies, and every agency is published their own datasets or services through API. So the art part is that all of this should have some common meaning, some common ground, and this is not easy. Let's see a simple example. Well, what's semantic? Semantic is the study of meaning, and this is important to be sure that the message is understood. Now we can see two different API messages, but those are not very clear because in the first case we don't know if it is a full name or it is just a first name, and if it is a full name, which is the first one, and which is the family name. In the second case, we don't know, okay, we know that Fabiano-Romeildo earns four million something, but we don't know what something is, so if we have to exchange this message with another country that has a different currency, this message can be problematic to integrate or to mash up. The solution are controlled vocabularies. Controlled vocabularies are a computer science tool that uses URI to disambigrate terms. It is very simple. So the first part of the URI is the name of the vocabulary. For example, this is the BPD vocabulary. Then there is the term, in this case it's dog, and then there is a definition. You see the RDFS comment. It's the common field name in vocabularies for a definition that is written in human readable language. So vocabularies contain a collection of terms and define concept and relationship in a specific domain. For example, in healthcare, in finance, whatever. They are validated by designed designated authority that is not necessarily a public authority. For example, your company, your own company could have a vocabulary for defining the different job titles, for example. So that when the hiring managers have to hire people, they can use a very well-specified job positions to do it. And they just not invent job positions. And they are formally described. We have languages for that. Using the text start on media type, or it's JSON counterpart, JSON LD, which is a W3C specification. Actually, all those specification, all those languages are completely isomorphic. So you can switch from Tartle to JSON LD and add exactly some information. Complex vocabularies are called ontologies, but well, this is not the focus of this talk. And codelists are the simplest form of vocabulary. They are simplest of terms. For example, the job title one, I was saying to you. So let's see how to create a very simple vocabulary. Here we have a vocabulary made up of four terms described in Tartle. At first, I declared the URL in spaces so I can write it in a more concise way. Instead of writing W3.org 2000 and so on, I just write RDFS. Then I defined the terms using one or more sentences.  So I say that a person is a natural person. It is described, you see the RDFS comment predicate, means that this is for human. It's human readable, it's not machine readable. The person has a given name and given name is the given name of a person. The same for registered family. As you can see, family is a complex term. Different countries, for different countries, or for different communities, family can mean something different. But even in the same country, for different agencies, the term family could have different meanings. In this case, in this vocabulary, a registered family is a family, is a group of people tied together according to a very specific Italian law. For a service produced by another agency, the term family could have a different meaning. In this case, it is not an IT registered family. You can see that IT is W3ID.org, Italian onto CPV. This means that worldwide, I can classify a registered family with a unique URI that is valid worldwide. If Italy is going to interact with another country and we use the term, they can see the meaning of that term. And another country or another agency can use a different URI to define a family. So, three terms for now. Now we define another term that is child of. Is child of is the child parent relation. And you can see I have another predicate. I have another sentence defining is child of. That is that it applies to person. In this case, I have a very clear definition of what is a person, what is a given name, what is a registered family and what does is child of mean in a very small vocabulary. Every term is well defined in this file. So, I can use Python to process this kind of files. The library is RDF-lib and vocabulary is interpreted as graph because I have entities that are related together. Subjects and objects are related by predicate. So, I parse those files in a graph and then I can translate this information from the total format to the JSON-LD format that is completely isomorphic. I have even other ways of serializing this information, for example in XML, but we are not interested in XML. In this case, you can see that I have a context. The context is that the IT string means that long URI and then I have a graph that is made of a list of travels. I have the East child of that has a comment and it has a domain. You can see that ID, the domain has an ID. This means that there is another line in the graph that contains ID, IT person. Let's make another example. This is very interesting and very useful. I can use and define vocabularies not only for concepts like the person concept, but even to define information, data set. This allows me to provide a lot of information in data set and this information doesn't need to be linear. There can be graphs. So in this case, this is a vocabulary based on these cost and doubling core standards. Those standards provide keywords and predicates to create more and more vocabularies. Syntax supports internationalization using language tag. For example, I can see the country ITA. This is the subject. The identifier is the ITA string. I have two labels, but I can have more, one in Italian and one in French. The same concept can be shortened, expressed in a more concise way. So sentences with the same subject and predicate can be shortened using semicolon and comma. For example, I can just write France as an identifier and two preferred labels. They can even create terms. For example, for the Czech Republic, I can say that it replaced another entry that is in the vocabulary, that is Czechoslovakia. This is the same for the Slovak Republic. On the contrary, I can say that the Czechoslovakia has been replaced by Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. If you can see all that stuff, you can understand that vocabularies improve quality, because in my service, if I say, okay, I use a tree code, a tree isocode letter to identify a country, and if I say that I'm using this EU vocabulary, I have not only with those tree letters the information of which country it is, but they have the localization of this country name in all the languages of the European Union, and they have even a lot of more information. For example, whether this country has a Euro currency, if this country has been replaced by another, for example, this is very important for registry information, because if you're a citizen from the Czech Republic and you were born before, for example, in 1980, you were not born in Czech Republic, you were born in Czechoslovakia, so you can use this table, this vocabulary, to map back the old information about countries, and all you need to store on your dataset is the tree letter code. So we can see that this is very helpful. Vocabularies are stored in graph databases. So you can use virtuoso, you can use Amazon Neptune, and you can query those databases with all this information using the Sparkle protocol. In this case, I have the vocabulary we have seen before. I make a query, and in this query where I specify a list of predicates that should match. In this case, I say the URI should be in the scheme of the Eurovoc country vocabulary. Eurovoc and SCOS are resolved using the name space I introduced before. They should have a concept using the pref label, and they have an identifier. I am interested in the concept and I'm interested in English and not in the others. And in this case, I just extract a very simple table with the URI, the concept, so Italy, France, and the identifier. So I can populate this information into a graph database and extract very simple views of those complex information. So I explain what our vocabularies are. Now we'll see how can we use them in a very simple way. So I can use vocabularies to describe data. This is a very simple example. It's not the country, that's me. That is identified by an email URI, so you can see this is my mail. It's me worldwide, that's me. This is defined by four sentences. The first one, well, they are actually five. I updated my slides, but the first sentence says that I am a person according to the Italian vocabulary for person. I have other predicates that says which are my given name according to the Italian vocabulary. My family name according to Italian vocabulary. Okay, it seems simple because it's a family name, but our friends from Iceland, for example, they have a patronymic or matronymic. So the concept of family name in Iceland is different from the one we have in other European countries. Or for example, this is my given name, but was it the same name I had when I was born? Is the same name that I had on my birth certificate? Or maybe I changed my name in time. So as you can see when you design services for millions of people, there are a lot of other cases that might happen and that you may have to take into account. So in this case, I am stating that this is my given name that I have now, not the one I had at birth. This is my family name and not my patronymic or matronymic. This is my birthplace and that's according to the EU vocabulary. And I have an identifier that, okay, I picked my mail, but it can even be different from the one I use in my subject predicate. Application can use all this information back in here and all the link-up information to automate interoperability checks and other logics. For example, they may check if the country where I was born is existing now or if maybe it's changed, for example. So it has been superseded by other countries. So those are all checks that you can do if you use data that is linked through vocabularies. Well, the nice thing about linked data is that they have many dimensions. They are graphs. And there is people that spend their lives providing this information. But actually you can project them to lower dimensions so that people that is not aware of all those complexity can use them because people may be just interested in a list of country names and localised names so that when it pops up a window on a web application you can see Italy instead of Italy, for example. So there are specifications that allows you to project data on those dimensions. There is a JSON-LD framing to project this kind of data into a very simple JSON object that is part called that you can use to make queries and produce, for example, CSV. There is a CSV for the web. There is another specification that allows to interpret CSV information as linked data. So the important thing is to build stuff using specification. Let's see JSON-LD framing. This is using the Python-PyLD vocabulary. So this code is quite simple. Loads the European country vocabulary from that URL that is published by the European Commission. Then loads into a JSON object. And then it makes a projection. To make a projection is named framing in this specification. So it selects all the subjects that has a given type. For example, all subjects that has a... Did I have a type cost concept? This is a technical idea, but that's okay. It uses and shows all the fields that I am seeing there. So country code, versioning, foe, and label in English. But those fields do not exist yet. This is the shape I want the JSON object to have. But we will see it in the next slide. And then I have a context. The context take the RDF information on the right. So the ID, the identifier, the versioning foe, the preferred label localizing in English. And map it to the specific fields. And the next thing is that the context object you can see there can be used to convert back the simplified JSON object to the original semantic stuff. But let's see, because it's very simple. On the left, I have the vocabulary. On the right, I have the JSON. So in the cost text, I say URL is an ID. So it takes the ID from the subject of the vocabulary and puts it into the URL field. Then it takes this cost pref label predicate. Just takes the IT localization and puts it in label underscore IT. It takes the versioning foe and puts it into the versioning foe object. Since I'm not specifying anything about the Euro currency, currency adoption date, it just keeps this information. In this way, I have a very simple projection of those very complex information that can be provided to web developers that have no knowledge of all the complexity of vocabularies we are explaining now. But that can use it, for example, to populate web forms or APIs. So the challenge when we work with vocabularies is making this information accessible. But we can build platforms so that we can publish data in different formats so that people can use them directly to create APIs or for all online fillable forms. So I have this linked data information with an internal. It's complex. It may be boring. It may be not comprehensible. Okay, but I can create a platform through framing that I showed before. I produce a JSON API. Or I can produce CSV so you just pick the fields you want to see and you get tabular data. Or I can produce a JSON schema. Imagine I want to produce an API and I want to populate a field. A field should be constrained by only the countries that are in this vocabularie. Okay, this is a JSON schema. You can see it. That provides an enumeration of all the fields that are contained in that vocabularie. So people are not supposed to understand how the vocabularie works, but you can write an API that wraps it and provide it as a JSON schema so that people that is going to build an API can say, okay, just reference this JSON schema URL and you will get that vocabularie for free. Another thing you can embed is into frictionless data that is a specification that provides metadata for tabular data. So we are mostly working on enabling people to use, in a simple way, this data that can seem complex that seems not completely understandable. So this shift now, semantic APIs. When we have APIs, we want that APIs can reference concepts and vocabularies to provide a complete and machine-readable description of the exchange concept. So if I send a payload, I want that a machine can be able to validate it not only for its syntax, but even for this semantic. So how can you build semantic APIs? Semantic APIs should be built using the same vocabularies. When different APIs use the same vocabularies, there is this feature that we have seen before, that is the JSON-LD context, that allows to map JSON properties to vocabularie terms. In this case, we have two API palettes. The first one is in Italian. The second one is in English. How can I know that they map to the same person, for example? I can write for my API a context, that is this texting rate. This context says that the numeric property fields maps to the Italian vocabularie, W3ID.org, Italian given name, that cittadinanza maps to the Has-Citizen concept, and in the concept I say that it uses the European country vocabularie. This means that whatever you have in the value, or the ITA string, should be appended to the base of the context. Well, if the other APIs makes the same work with given name, citizenship, and so on, they can be mapped back to the same vocabularie. So you can see that I can transform back and see that the user has an IT given name, Mario, and then has an IT as citizenship that has the full URI of Italy in the European country vocabularie. So the work that should be done is to design APIs that should interoperate between different, for example, ecosystems. Together, for example, imagine you have to integrate an API that works on the finance sector with another API that works in the registry sector, or in another financial sector where there are some regulations that are different. You should gather your payloads and check to understand whether the concept that you are using in your APIs are the same. Because, for example, in some cases, you may use the concept of a legal person, and in other contexts you can use the concept of physical person. They may not map in different ecosystems, and this means that maybe in some cases if you are creating a financial application that only works with people, it's okay, but if you are creating a financial application that works or that should work both for physical person and legal person with companies, maybe you need to tweak your application before integrating, before mashing up. Otherwise, you may end with inconsistency. So, how can this enable interoperability in cross-border services? Well, the basic game is that the European Commission defined a basic vocabulary for a person to identify a subset of person so that on the left you have a registry name in Italy. With a given name there is a second name, a surname, and a country. I can see that some of those fields map to the European vocabulary, that is w3.org slash ns slash person. So, I can map some of these fields. Some of the second name that maps to alternate name has no mapping, but for this subset I can transform this person record to a person record that is possible to map in all other European countries. And the same can be done by other countries. This means that I have a basis to create interoperable service so that if you move to Finland, for example, or to Ireland, the basic registry information are available all across Europe. So, the problem now is that we have three different specifications. The first specification is the Linked Data Tartar Stuff, just on LD, that is used by semantic scientists or by the semantic web specialists, and that is very complex to be understood for web developers, service developers, and so on. And the other world that is related to web developers, API developers, is the OpenAPI world. The problem is, how can I bridge those two worlds which have different requirements? When I design a service that should be available for 60 million people, for example, I have to shape for billions of requests. So, I cannot convey every time all the semantic information that I need to describe all the specificity of a service. So, I cannot convey the complete payload, semantic payload. And in the other case, if I have to convey this payload to another country to create an interoperable service because I want to attend France University while my records are written using Italian schemas, how can the France University Web Service understand those kind of schemas? We try to bridge the gap. So, we leave agencies the freedom to define their own JSON schema. So, they can define freely the fields they want in providing their services, but they should do it in a way that fills map consistently. The meaning of the fields should be consistent with the Italian ontology, so with the Italian book libraries. So, when you say, for example, given name, it's not the patronymic, it's not the patronymic, it's not the name you had at birth, but it's the name that you have now and after you change your name because you don't like your old name or because you don't like your surname and you change, this is the name you have currently on the Italian National Registry. And the agency that provides the service should provide semantic information in the form of a JSON-LD context. The JSON-LD context is this thing we saw before. So, it's an object where every JSON field is mapped back to an URI in a vocabulary. So, the country should be mappable, the given name should be mappable, the surname should be mappable. If I have this kind of information into the schema, I can design the integration before start developing. So, it's an exchange of information that does not happen at runtime, not while the agencies or while the mashup is ongoing, but when two organizations design the API, they will check the context, they will check whether the semantic of those APIs is the same, and then they will be able to create a mashup that is syntactically coherent and that can be used at the integration phase because you can write tests that, for example, if you rely on vocabulary, that download during the test the vocabulary and check whether the information you have provided in your test are coherent, for example, with the job title that your organization decided with the list of countries that your organization intended, or, for example, whether the web developers of your UI use the same localization labels that are provided by the vocabulary. So, for this one, we filed a draft RFC that you are welcome to check, and we even stubbed some interfaces. For example, we implemented a very simple modified sugar editor where while you design your API, if you stub the URL of the person class, for example, it will make a query on that endpoint, on the sparkling point that stores that information, that vocabulary, and provides you with all the properties that are stored into the graph database. In this case, the web developer doesn't need to know about vocabularies. He just needs to know that there is a model class for person and that it can use that model, it can use the properties in different ways, in different order, in different shapes, but it needs to map back each property that it provides in its own schema to the original properties that are in the class. And in some cases, for example, if there are vocabularies for those specific properties, you can use and import those properties either in the form of lists or either in the form of open API schemas. All these happen at design time and catalogs ensure that API design is consistent within a given ecosystem. So, in Italy, we are building this National Data Catalog for semantic interoperability. It's a long name, but that's it. We already have a set of controlled vocabularies that you can get from the URI. The sources are on GitHub, and those vocabularies are aligned with European authority tables. Authority tables are very interesting if you have to plan services that have thousands of producers and consumers that work independently, because in this way, you don't need people to sync up between themselves, but they can always rely on those authority tables. And the National Data Catalog for semantic interoperability will allow to find reusable vocabularies ontology, share semantic interoperable schemas and public services, and ensure that APIs have a correct meaning and can be meshed up together. Then we are working on a lot of semantic specifications for interoperability. We are registering the YAML media type, because it has not been formalized yet. And in this work, we are providing security and interoperability consideration. It's very interesting, I suggest you to read it. There is a YAML-LD, that is a W3C-specific ongoing specification, that allows to express all this information instead of using JSON in YAML. And then there is this specification to bridge JSON schema and OpenAPI, so that you can formalize better all this concepts. Even there, you can see interoperability and security consideration. If you are into this kind of stuff, please drop me a line. There is a lot of community work that is ongoing, but with the OpenAPI community and the ITF and W3C, and we are working on all those tables together. Then there is this very experimental work we are doing, that is to bridge REST APIs and LinkedIn data. This work is ongoing on GitHub. And then we are even trying to bridge those kind of stuff with frictionless data. That is this specification that allows to bridge CSV and Excel and data that is exported in not very semantic stuff to a well-comprehensible, well-understandable REST API ecosystem. Well, I think that I'm done. I finished quite early. If we have some time, I can show you a couple of demos, but at first I think better to have some questions. Yeah, so we'll do the mic, and we will have some Q&A session in the meantime before the Susan demo, maybe you could do some demo. Okay, I can show you a couple of specifications. Okay, question first. Okay, so you've mentioned that you've designed the whole system for around 60 million users. So I guess that's not the real number of the users which are connecting with your system. So what's the real workload and what is the demand in comparison to what you've designed system for? Well, actually we designed a system for 60 million users because... There are 60 million Italians, right? Yes, and we provide services to all of them. And actually the kind of designing system is even wider because, for example, 60 million is just users, but we have 10 million companies, we have vehicles. So the goal of our work is not just to design the single systems, but since every agency, for example, the Ministry of Interior designed the system for the national registry population, okay? The problem is that you have to make all this information interoperable and integrable with all the other agencies that, for example, have information for vehicles or for companies or, for example, for the invoicing system that process every single invoice that is issued in Italy. So when an invoice is processed, you need to ensure that the sender and the recipient are existing living persons, for example. So actually in terms of workload, we are speaking of systems of thousands of APIs that are interconnected. And the challenge is not really operational because if you just want to face these kind of things operational, you can say, okay, there are some best practices in addressing single services, but the point is that if every agency designed the system in isolation, when you have to create services for citizens that needs to integrate the API of the population registry with the API for companies and the API for the fiscal information, for example, those kind of services are not harmonized so every single agency designed these kind of services, optimizing for their specific workload, then you will have very efficient services, vertical services, but you're not allowing an API ecosystem to grow and you are not allowing, for example, local agencies to build services. One of the problems you have, for example, is that in Italy you have, let's say, 400 central agencies that are big, but you have 8,000 municipalities and they are very close to the citizen and they are not every municipality has great money for expenditure including large services, but they may be able to mesh up at least basic services to provide customized user experience for their citizens, for example, for some social services. So the challenge is quite different, it's not just workload, it's to optimize the workload of the country, not just the workload of a single agency because for a single agency, in general, it's complex, yes, because it's complex, really complex, but it's doable because you say, okay, this is for a country, I mean. That's a huge scale. Yeah, the problem is to create something that can serve not only the verticals but even the locals. A region should be able to mesh up APIs that are provided by great major ministries or global agencies or what, national wide agencies. So the challenge is this one. I don't know if... I understand I have not answered to your question, but I think that... Yeah, but you've described the matter of... So thank you, Roberto, for the talk and let's give him a round of applause. Okay, thank you. So our next session will be after the coffee break.


The Centre for Citizens with Disabilities is advocating promoting inclusive governance for persons with disabilities. Executive Director of the Centre, David Anyele, expressed dissatisfaction at the exclusion of persons with disabilities in national affairs. The needs of marginalized groups, especially people with disabilities, this particular issue we are emphasizing on. You know, the Minister also is going about telling Nigerians how he's going to innovate poverty. But the people that carry poverty wherever they go, she has never made a single statement on how their poverty will be innovated. You will agree with me that when we talk about poor people, when we talk about people that can beg, when we talk about people that can struggle much more to benefit, it is people with disabilities. Regrettably, the state is not taking steps to include them in what they are doing. Similarly, Minister of Women Affairs, Mrs. Buju Ohanenye Kennedy said she will prioritize empowering more Nigerian women with skills to upgrade their economic status, but she mentioned how women with disabilities will benefit from the program. These are the issues we are talking about. So every minister, be it communication, be it youth and sports, be it health, they will tell you how women and young people will benefit from government, but they are always silent on people with disabilities. My comment on what has been said is that the nation seems to not understand that by disempowering 30 million people out of a population of not up to 300 million. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


involved in the budgeting process. It has to, as the company gets larger and larger, it has to be more decentralized. A lot of the information is going to have to go from the bottom up because the people in the departments are the people that have the information necessary to make the budget or put the budget together. So the larger the company is, the more we're going to have to be dependent on the segments, the management of each department, the regional managers to go in and say, okay, we're going to piece this thing up from the bottom up. We're going to get the budget information. Then we're going to put it together by region possibly. And then we'll take a look at it from a holistic type of standpoint. So from a logistics standpoint, then as the company gets larger, then you can have different segments and you're going to have to put things up by segment just from a logistics type of standpoint. It's also important that we want to have the communication because remember that the communications is one of the big keys of the budget. So when we consider the communication process, rather than thinking of it, this would be the way that we kind of build the budget from the bottom up as we take the information from the departments to possibly regions to possibly top management. But the budgeting process, we want to think of it as kind of an even type of process here. So obviously the end decision is going to be made by the top management, but a lot of the information is going to be made by the departments. And what we need is communication back and forth. So although the end decision is going to be made by the top management, we need the communication to be going back and forth and the people that are directing the budget committee then aren't really there to make their end goal in the budgeting process when we go through the budgeting process isn't really to be the one to say, Hey, this is it. This is the actual decision or to be the one that really knows everything so that they can basically make the ultimate decision necessarily within the budgeting process. The important piece is the process. We need someone to manage and direct the process. So we have a lot of people involved here. The main goal is to put a process together that everybody feels invested in the process. Everybody feels that the process is geared towards the full benefit of the company. And everybody feels that they have been heard within the process and don't have any fear of putting the information into the process for it to be considered with the objective of the end result, the best result for the company in general. If people feel comfortable with the process, if they think that the process is fair, is justified, then they're typically going to be good with the outcome. So that means that when you consider that the process of the budget committee meeting, the what has to happen in terms of running it is for it to be ran in such a way that everybody feels that the process is fair. The process is good. They had the contribution. And then once the decision has been made, then the communication could then happen and the decision making process then stops then because now the decision has been made. Hopefully everybody feels good about the process. It then can be communicated clearly by management at that point that, hey, the decision has been made. We've addressed everything that we can. Anybody that had a dissenting opinion. Hopefully we've addressed that dissenting opinion decisions made now. Now we communicate the implementation of the budget process of the plan that everybody has had feedback in and has implemented their information on. And at that point in time, it's the communication of the plan, not the communication on how to put the plan together.


So, a couple of days ago, I was at a flea market. It was Sunday and I had nothing to do that day, so that I should go over there after seeing it while driving and see if there was anything I would be interested in. I went over to the DVD sectionally and there was a bunch of them for various shows. Looking through it, something caught my eye. It was a blank DVD case with the words, SBSP, S1, F17, Roughcraft. I knew that the initials, SBSP, meant SpongeBob SquarePants and that episode 17 of season 1 was rock bottom, but lot interested me more was the words, Roughcraft. Was this some sort of early and released version of the episode? This thought alone made me want to buy it immediately. I went up to the cash register and asked the guy working at how much it was. He lifted his head from his magazine and looked at the item I held in my hands. That'll be $5. He said, I put my money on the counter and walked out of the store and back to my car. After I got home, I went upstairs to my room. I opened the case and put the DVD into my laptop. Windows Media Player opened up and the video began. It began by showing a white screen with black text reading. This is the Roughcraft of the SpongeBob SquarePants episode, Rock Bottom. All footage in this video belongs to Nickelodeon Studios. Do not under any circumstances distribute this video. The screen faded to black. It then faded back in, showing the title card. After this, it began normally with SpongeBob and Patrick waiting for the bus after a fun day at Glove World. One difference I noticed from the final version of the episode was that there was no background music or sounds, just SpongeBob's voice. They get on the bus and the usual shenanigans happen like normal, with SpongeBob trying to get his wallet and annoyingly hitting the bus driver which has Glove ballooned. I chuckled at the scene. After this, the bus takes them to Rock Bottom. It was a lot creepier than the final version, like as in it was a lot creamer, with the monsters being more deformed and groaning, sounding as if they were in pain. SpongeBob misses the bus that Patrick gets on and tries to chase it but fails. The disturbing part about this is that Patrick was laughing very cruelly at his failed attempts. After this, SpongeBob sits down on the ground and begins to cry. Suddenly, the monsters surround him as he immediately stops crying and looks up in horror. They begin to rip him apart and devour him very graphically, as Patrick's laughing could be heard, only demonic and distorted. The screen gets blurry as this is happening, and abruptly cuts to SpongeBob trying to get a bus with the window attendant. He cruelly tells SpongeBob to get lost and puts the closed sign. After this, it immediately gets really dark, not like in the final, but extremely dark to the point I can't even see SpongeBob. SpongeBob hears the raspberry noises and starts to run away. He continues running until he runs into the wall and says, Sit in. Sit in. Leave in. The fish sweet the red light on his head comes, the red light being really bright. He has big blood shot eyes and sharp teeth as well. SpongeBob lets out a blood curdling scream, which loops over and over until the scream boars again and cuts abruptly to black. There were no credits at all, it just ended there. I watched him founded and shot by what I saw. I planned to upload it to YouTube to show other people, but I lost the DVD. One question that lingers in my mind about this whole thing is, why would Nickelodeon make this?


Family Theater presents Victor Jory and Bobby Driscoll. From Hollywood, the Mutual Network in Cooperation with Family Theater presents Shot in the Dark, starring Bobby Driscoll. And now, here is your host, Victor Jory. Thank you, Tony LaFranco. Family Theater's only purpose is to bring to everyone's attention a practice that must become an important part of our lives We are to win peace for ourselves, peace for our families, and peace for the world. Family Theater urges you to pray. Pray together as a family. And now, to our transcribed drama, Shot in the Dark, starring Bobby Driscoll as Hush. I've seen a lot, boy. But this is the most I've ever seen. What is? The lame, the halt, and the blind right enough. That's what they're down to now. I swear, old man, sometimes you're hard to understand. To some I reckon. But I figured a boy like you would kid me right enough. There's a kind of understanding between the very young and the very old, I've heard. And I'm not so awful young, and I wish you'd quit harping on it. The Northerners are fighting to free the slaves. And we're fighting for the right to secede. We ain't even fighting the same war. And we've lost it anyway. We haven't. We haven't lost it. Not by a long shot.  I'm young enough to have faith in the Confederacy. Young enough to go on fighting. Go on believing in what I started out believing in. Old men make me sick. I'm tired before we start on a march and you're ready to turn turtle first time some no-good Yankee fires a shot. I wouldn't know that. Nobody's fired a shot at me yet. I mean when it happens. You want to know what I think? I've heard what you think. I don't think this company's going to hear any shots being fired. That's what I think. That's all you know. You think maybe they're saving us for something? They could be. Our boys fought all the way to Pennsylvania. And now we're sitting around our fires getting ready to defend Georgia. The war's over. We've lost, boy. Sherman and his blue coats aren't going to stop till they see the ocean. Generally, he'll think of something to turn those dirty Yankees. He's a great man. Oh, go away, boy. Go away. You're too muddleheaded for me to talk to. I'd sooner sit alone. I shouldn't be wasting my time talking to you anyway. It's you that's muddled.  All right. All right, I will. I'll just keep the salt I was going to give you. What do you think of that? Salt? Go away, boy. Go away. Oh, man, like that. What's he know? What's he know about anything? General Sherman's going to march all the way. Hush, Poppy. Hey. Who's that? Over here. It's me, TJ. Oh. Did I hear you say something about salt? Oh, that. You really got some? Nah. Nah, I was just trying to spite old man Gander. I thought as much. You on guard duty? Yeah. And that's supposed to talk to anybody. But I guess it'll be all right. Walk along with me. I don't know as I should. Come on. Gets kind of spooky walking these woods alone. Captain Miles, he said we might be falling back on Savannah for special duty. Savannah? I never been to Savannah. Me neither. You don't look too happy about the idea. There's no Yankees in Savannah. Well, there's no Yankees here. What's the difference? I heard they're not too far away. Say, I'm getting cold, TJ. I think I'll go back by one of the fires. Ah, it's not that cold. Walk along with me for a little bit. It's easier for you to say. You've got a good coat. You call this a coat? Well, it's more than I got. You know what we ought to do, Hush? What? We ought to get you a coat. And get me a decent one, too, while we're about it. Well, how could we do a thing like that? Same way Arlen Thomas got his. You mean off a Yankee? Why not? You haven't got your Yankee yet, have you? No. I haven't either. What say we sneak off and see what we can do? Well, ah, there ain't a Yankee within ten miles of here. There's bummers. How are you going to find bummers? Just sit out and look for them, I guess. You there. You. Oh, God. That's Captain Miles.  Don't try it, boy. Which one of you boys is Sentry? I was just walking my post, Captain, sir. I seen him and asked him who goes there. Talking to the Sentry. Oh, well, I don't suppose it makes much difference now. Sir? We'll be falling back on Savannah tomorrow sometime. We can fight, sir. We can show them dirty Yankees a thing or two. When we get in battle, you'll see. Boy, I don't aim to give this company a chance at battle. Colonel Goss feels the same way about it. That's why we'll be falling back tomorrow. Colonel Goss' orders, sir? They're the orders I asked him to give me. But why, sir? That's something you don't ask anymore, boy. But as long as you have, I'll tell you. Because eight miles that way, the ninth Iowa and the 111th Illinois seasoned outfits are getting ready to jump on us.  Does that answer your question? Yes, sir. It does. Better get some rest. Long march tomorrow. Yes, sir. I guess we better not talk anymore, Hush. So he thinks we're not good enough, huh? Maybe we'll just show him a thing or two, Hush. Maybe we will, TJ. Maybe we will. Hush! Where are you? I'm right here. I thought I'd lost you for a minute. You figure they know we're gone? We'll be back before they know a thing. What do you say, the ninth Iowa? Yeah, and the hundred and something from Illinois. Well, they're both seasoned outfits, anyway. I remember that part. You scared? Me? You sound scared. Nah. It's this old gun. It takes me too long to load and fire.  How would you? Well, it wouldn't. I used to be able to pot a squirrel, plum through the eye. Wonder which way we go now. That way. It's awful dark. How do you know? I just live around here, that's how. Around here? A couple miles that way. But how do you know that's the right way? Because Captain Miles pointed northeast, and that's the way the road goes. Now, come on. All right. All right. Boy, the way you move a body, think you were after General Grant himself. You think we ought to stay on the road? We're gonna get our yanks. I think we'll have to stay on the road. I don't know. You are scared. No, I'm really on that. But I've heard things, that's all. What things? That the yanks, that they sometimes wait by a road, and then, well, you know, ambush? I heard about a lot of our boys getting killed that way. I think you're making that up. I'm not, Hush. I swear I'm not. Stop where you are. What did I tell you? What did I tell you? It's only a woman. It's Yankees. I know it is. Now, TJ, let go of me. I said let go of me. If you got any sense, you'll run too. My laundry. Did I get him? No, ma'am. Missed him clean. You stay where you are. I won't miss you. I'm afraid you used up your load, ma'am. You keep bagged just the same. Yes, ma'am. You're awful young to be a bummer. I'm not a bummer. I'm with the Georgia Special Reserves. Name's Hezekiah Turner. Hezekiah Turner? Yes, ma'am. Then, you got another name, haven't you? Well, haven't you? Yes, ma'am. What is it? Well, when I was a tad, they called me hush puppy. Step over here in this patch of moonlight. I want to see your face. Yes, ma'am. Same eyes. Same mouth as your father. I'll allow you who you say you are. You knew my father, ma'am? Yeah. He used to hunt with my man. He spoke of you often enough. He's dead now. So's my man. Died with the first Georgia. I'm sorry. Being sorry, I don't do no good. Have there been any bummers around here? Not around here. Up the road a mile or so. The Sims Place. Don't know it, ma'am. Bummers were down on them like the outlaws they are. Took everything they could lift. Not around here, though. Rumor is that Georgia Special Reserves are going to hold the line. The thing that the even bummers would do would be to get close to fighting. Hold the line. I didn't rightly hear you. The Georgia Special Reserves are pulling back to Savannah tomorrow afternoon. If I was a Yankee sympathizer, that would be valuable information to have. Wouldn't it, Hezekiah? Well, you wouldn't. I might. It's possible.  First of all, I'm a woman. And I'm sick to death of all this killing. Don't worry. I won't let you secret out. But I might if I thought it would save a few lives. Yes, even Yankee lives. You'd save Yankee? Is that so terrible? Haven't you heard about the terrible things they do? I don't set much store by gossip. And I don't think they do anything our boys wouldn't do. They're men. And men are pretty much the same all over. Where are you going? Back to Savannah with your company? No, ma'am. I'm going to get me a Yang. Must be getting close to him now. Just my luck to stumble into the whole Yankee army. Let's see what was it Captain Miles said. A good soldier fights with his ears. All right, listen, hush. Listen. Don't hear nothing. A little farther. Listen again. Listen real hard. Might be a possum. Could be. For what it is, it's a Yankee. Now make sure it ain't 10 of them hush. I see you, Mr. Yankee. And I'll teach you to go making more in Georgia. Now you just stand still. Where's that front side? Who's there? And fire! Bad Jiminy's! I got him! I got me a Yang. Getting wheels on the seas. I didn't go to do it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I killed him. I killed a man. You shot me. Sorry, I'm sorry. It's like hot soup. Here, I'll bind it up. Wait. Your shirt. I'll help. No, you stay put. I'll do it. I know how I think. When I was hurt on the farm, my father did this. Gonna die? I don't know. But does it hurt much? It burns. When I finished binding it, then it might be bad. You said I'm a farmer.  I'm a soldier. I was a farmer. I'm a farmer.  No, I'm a soldier. I was a farmer. You're surprised. I had a little place near Germantown. It would have been nice to see again. Maybe, maybe you will see it again. Do you think you can walk? Don't think so. Can't even get up. But I'll have to carry you. I'm heavy. It's all right. I'm strong for my age. Now you hold around my neck. Yeah? I'm holding. We go. Back to your company? It's too far. I think I know someone who'll take care of you. Will it be all right? It's in his chest, but it's not a second wound. Ma'am? No bubbles in the wound. And the ball went through. He may be all right. He's gotta be all right. You'll have to help. What can I do? I'll have to tend him, night and day. I'll do whatever you say. Will you take care of the farm while I tend him? If I do that, I won't be able to go back to Savannah with my company. And they'll mark you as a deserter. But I still have to ask you to stay. I'll stay. I'll tend your farm. As a deserter, you might not be able to live in this part of the country again. I guess I don't aim to try, ma'am. You'll go away? I thought I was a soldier. I went about doing the job they gave me to do. I guess I just wasn't big enough to do it. In that way, I don't reckon I'm a soldier. But I guess I can take my medicine like a soldier. Ma'am, even if I'm not either one of those things yet. Maybe you're not a soldier. Maybe you were never meant to be one, Hezekiah. You feeling better today? Yeah, I feel good. A little pain here. And not so much as two weeks ago. Another weekend, I think maybe I'll go back to Germantown. No reason not to, I reckon. Now that General Lee's surrendered. Stopped to collect my back pay first. Think maybe that, with that I'll stop my barn. Big white one. Back to farming. You prove to me that I'm a better farmer than a soldier. So am I. I'm very sorry about all this. You were doing your duty. No man should apologize for that. I wasn't just doing my duty. I wanted to tell you that before I go. You see, I'd gone out just to get my yank. To get your yank? To prove to everybody that I could do it. But I was a soldier. Everybody was saying they all said the war was ending. I was afraid it'd end before I'd fired a shot. Where are you going? West, I think. You're not gonna do what you said?  Nobody to give myself up to. War's over. Thanks. For not being a good soldier. I'm glad I'm not. Bye. Goodbye, Hush. Is it kind? Yes, ma'am. I fixed you a little something to eat along the way. Well, I'm obliged to you, ma'am. Not much. Just some bread and fat back. And some hush puppies. I remember from when your father used to brag on you. He said you liked him. Yes, ma'am. That's how I got the nickname. I don't think they'll call you that anymore. I think not, ma'am.  You're not a child anymore.  Because I fired first? Oh, no. Because you learned to be unselfish. Because you were willing to do what you knew was right. In spite of what you thought it might cost. Goodbye, Mr. Kaya. Goodbye. Thank you, ma'am. This is Victor Jory again. I've had some wonderful experiences in my life. But I would rank high among them. That of hearing a symphony orchestra playing some of my own compositions. To hear the cellos throbbing with warmth over the notes you wrote. To hear the violins singing the melody in muted appeal. To hear the horns enriching each phrase and bar. Well, it's like giving creation back to the creator. Yes, they'll tell you music is the universal language. And it does approach it. But I think there's a much more universal language. Prayer. From the infant, lisping phrases newly learned and not yet quite understood. To the old person dying on a bed of pain with life's meaning now clearer. Before dimming eyes. There's a symphony for you far above mere man to comprehend. In such a symphony there are no scratchy fiddles. No untuned strings or broken reeds. Just one vast harp. The harp of a thousand strings. Each voice of prayer is a voice in tune. For it is tuned to the infinite concert master. Who hears every pulsing string and every throbbing note. Every gentle rhythm and tender harmony. Every family at prayer is such a symphony. And during this week of weeks, let us remember that the family that prays together stays together.  From Hollywood Family Theater has brought you transcribed, Shot in the Dark starring Bobby Driscoll. Victor Jory was your host. Featured in our cast were John Stevenson, George Peroni, Margaret Brayton and Dick Wilson. The script was written and directed for Family Theater by Robert Hugo Sullivan with music composed and conducted by Harry Zimmerman. The series of Family Theater broadcasts is made possible by the thousands of you who feel the need for this type of program. By the Mutual Network which has responded to this need. And by the hundreds of stars of stage, screen and radio who give so unselfishly of their time and talent to appear on our Family Theater stage.  This is Tony LaFranco expressing the wish of Family Theater that the blessing of God may be upon you and your home and inviting you to join us next week when Family Theater will present The Spy. Join us, won't you? Family Theater has broadcast throughout the world and originates in the Hollywood studios of the world's largest network. This is Mutual, the radio network for all America.